Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Lad


 * 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 Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Blood Lad

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unsourced and a good faith search could find no indication of notability (although I'll happly withdraw the nom if I've missed sources due to language issues). Dpmuk (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now pending a search to find more sources using the Japanese title. I did find a source (one lone English source) stating that an anime adaptation is in the works, but other than that I couldn't find anything else that's reliable. However, since basing a subject's notability on the number of English sources (or lack thereof) can be considered systemic bias, it neither establishes notability nor does it endorse deletion. Hopefully, if more Japanese sources are found, then the article can be kept. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to see what I can find when I get home. I'm at my school's library, which unfortunately won't let me download any browsers or add-ons that help with translation. There does seem to be sources in Japanese, but it's hard to see what is or isn't reliable without a translation program.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: An anime adaptation has been announced and it is licensed in English (although the first volume isn't due until December), German and French. There are currently 6 volumes, the most recent published last month so it is presumably still ongoing. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources have been found to establish notability. Article needs fixing however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY: . Cavarrone (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are any of those sources enough to establish notability?  From what I can see, Spick Mich might not be a reliable source and Kadokawa Shoten is not independent.  This could leave just the Anime News Network to establish notability and I'm not sure that's enough what with it being a single specialised source.  If there is precedent that that's sufficient then I'll withdraw the nom but at the moment I'm still not convinced this meets our notability requirements. Dpmuk (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (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.