Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitter Virgin


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Userfy. Moved to User:KrebMarkt/Bitter Virgin (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bitter Virgin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N; no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "I believe it is notable. Discuss in an AFD if you wish" -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless sourced. WP:BURDEN. If it notable, those who wish for this article to be kept will add the sources necessary. Miami33139 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I love the series and predict that it will received critical acclaimed for it's portrayal of incest, rape, pregnancy, and the associated trauma if it were licensed in English. However, that hasn't happened yet. Until sources are presented discussing the work, I would would have to say that it fails the inclusion guidelines for stand-alone articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy on me Just got licensed in France by Ki-oon. I will bring it back when i got enough French RS coverage to pass WP:BK #1. Probably will give it a shot to DYK to thwart some noses. Sorry, i'm in full disillusion mode today. --KrebMarkt 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:KrebMarkt -- I can't find anything reliable to support the notability of this series, but given the subject it's extremely likely to get multiply reviewed in France ... once the French editions come out. No prejudice against recreation once this occurs (assuming it does). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:KrebMarkt. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found.  Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.