Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoroCoro Comic


 * 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. per WP:SNOW JForget  00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

CoroCoro Comic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails to provide independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Mathemagician57721 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: while the article should provide these independent reliable sources, you should search for them yourself before nominating it for deletion. If they are out there, some simple tags on the article are the solution, not deletion. And in this case, the sources exist, even in English (I presume they will be plentiful in Japanese), e.g. Time Asia, or more significantly the five pages it gets in Dreamland Japan. THis is only what is viewable online and in English, Google books reveals many more available sources. Fram (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of reliable sources, meets WP:NME.  ceran  thor  12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Beloved Freak  23:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep given that the nominator turned out to be a vandal only account. No prejudice against renomination. --Farix (Talk) 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep given that the nominator turned out to be a vandal only account and the article's subject is blatantly notable. Renomination would be asinine. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Vandalism account. This article will surely be re-nominated if no one add the evidences of notability found into the article. --KrebMarkt 04:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And then that renominator will have done very sloppy work. A nominator is supposed to first look at evidence of notability outside of the article. Furthermore, when someone wants to renominate an article, reading the previous discussion(s) is always a good idea. In this case, the current discussion would provide plenty of evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure but that also mean people presenting evidences of notability during Afd have just the Afd in mind. Improving the article isn't in their agenda. Both pratices aren't great and one can't excuse the other. --KrebMarkt 11:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I often notice AfD's where it is obvious from the available sources that the topic is notable, but were I don't feel confident enough to accurately summarize these sources into a complete, correct article. The subject deserves an article, but the actual writing or improving is better left to those with sufficient knowledge of the field, interest in the subject, and time on their hands. We are all volunteers, and sometimes we have the time and the interest to improve the article, and sometimes we are only capable of presenting the necessary evidence, without integrating it into the article. This is perfectly excusable and not comparable to someone willing to delete the work of another editor without doing any effort at all to see if the article should be deleted or not. Fram (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are in the same case ;) I usually pile up my findings as external links and/or a reference section in the article talk page. Editors willing to improve article don't have to dig Afd archive to find the resources to improve it. --KrebMarkt 15:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even without evidences of discussion, the magazine that initially serialized Doraemon and Pokemon, among other important works, is clearly notable in some way. Do we have enough snow falling yet? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP: SNOW, no point on going on, the references are there and this was nom by a Vandalism account. Yes I do believe enough snow has fallen here. —Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (AT)
 * Keep as per everyone. Sources showing notability clearly exist. Edward321 (talk) 22:40, 3 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.