Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba


 * 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 delete, as per previous AFD (Articles for deletion/Kimetsu no yaiba). I made it a redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump to avoid red links. fish &amp;karate 15:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Search for reliable sources only turns up passing mentions, but nothing that would pass WP:NBOOK. This is a matter of WP:TOOSOON. Prod disputed on the bases that other articles exists. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment My real concern is not how notable Kimetsu no Yaiba itself is but how haphazardly notability is applied in manga pages, especially since there are tons of manga with even less notability that have Wikipedia pages that are completely unchallenged. Just within Weekly Shonen Jump, here are the list of manga that I challenge anyone to argue is more notable than Kimetsu no Yaiba:

- Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden

- Robot x LaserBeam

- Barrage (manga)

- Enigma (manga)

- Oumagadoki Zoo

- Cross Manage

Kimetsu no Yaiba's Wikipedia article is immediately put to deletion within an hour of creation, while all of these stand for 5+ years in some cases. I would especially emphasize Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden, which is a failed manga that had poor sales, lasted 3 volumes before being axed and has absolutely no notability in any way. Yet since Farix has edited the page without proposing deletion, I presume it means that he or she believes it is notable in a way that Kimetsu no Yaiba isn't.

I will finally still argue that Kimetsu no Yaiba is notable. By its official Japanese twitter page, it has sold 1.5 million copies and is a star in the most popular manga anthology in the world with Japanese media coverage and buzz. If consistent English media coverage is a precursor to notability, we should take down possibly half the pages on here. Thriceplus (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only one notable source (Anime News Network), and that's only a mention of its English-translation release and a blurb by Viz Media. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  00:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, just delete this. I'm getting too old to be wasting my time debating whether a manga I don't really even read has any notability by some arcane Wikipedia rules. If this page violates the notability rule, so be it. My only hope is that overlords like Farix and other users here apply this rule uniformly and not cherry pick specific situations. I'm hoping to see Farix either propose to delete the other articles I brought up above or write an impassioned defense on their notability. Thriceplus (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because there are other articles that have notability problems has nothing to do with this one. In fact, I've tagged most of those articles for having notability problems and even WP:PRODded one for deletion. I just didn't have the time to do a search for sources at the time and then forgot about them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I already said I'm fine with the deletion of this article. Is it too much to ask for consistency in the application of rules for the most active and controlling users on Wikipedia? And your defense is laughable. For someone that made 6 different edits to Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden across a period of 7 years between 2009 and 2016, I find it hard to believe you somehow missed the fact that the article is completely not notable. And I'm curious about the fact that you proposed one of these articles for deletion and yet it stands. What is the defense used by that article to avoid deletion that somehow doesn't apply to this article? Thriceplus (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is actually the second nomination for this page. See: Articles for deletion/Kimetsu no yaiba. No improvements done since then, possible speedy delete? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - As the primary contributor has already supported deletion, should the article now be tagged for speedy deletion under G7? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think so, the closing admin also should mark this as the second nomination of said article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And tagged. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:12, 9 November 2017 (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.