Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamble Fish


 * 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 without prejudice to recreation with suitable sources.  Spinning Spark  15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Gamble Fish
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Search for reliable, third-party sources turns up mostly illegal scanlations and one review of questionable reliability. However, even if the review site is deemed reliable, this would not constitute "significant coverage" as outlined in WP:NOTE nor are there any other indicators that the subject would pass one of the other criteria in WP:BK. The other Wikipedias also do not offer any reliable sources either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK. Nominator nominated the article for deletion then removed 8000 bytes from the article.  What this means is that the nominator doesn't think that the deletion nomination is sufficient to result in a delete, which is evidence that there is no deletion argument to consider.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What utter hogwash. I gave a strong case for deletion, namely that it lacks coverage by reliable, third party sources. And editing the article to remove trivia did not, in any way, invalidate my original argument. On top of that WP:NPASR is not a speed keep rational. All it states is that closing admins can use their best judgment when closing AfDs with little to no participations after 7 days from the nomination. (relist, no consensus, or delete) It has only been 4 days since the nomination was made (3 days since you made your "speedy keep" comment). —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weakest possible delete without prejudice for recreation with more sources. This is probably going to be one of the most difficult !votes I will ever make inan AfD. I have known about this manga for several years for various reasons, so it has a place in my heart. Sure I've never actually read the manga, but I still have feelings for it nonetheless. This is the reason for the "weakest possible" part. But here's the thing − it is apparently not the subject of enough, significant, reliable, coverage, whether in English or Japanese. The manga does seem to be rather popular, but without reliable coverage, it can't have an article. I'll change my mind however if someone finds sources that I couldn't Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow  Talk 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of indepencent reliable sources. Topic does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing under Gamble Fish, Tomu Shirasagi, Aoyama Hiromi, or Yumeichirou Shirasagi. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Akita Shoten as a possible search term or Delete per nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I exported the full history of this article to the Manga Wikia. So nothing is lost.  Anyone wanting to see their contributions and expand even, go to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Gamble_Fish Note, it may take time to update their server for the entire history.   D r e a m Focus  21:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per initial nom, and primarily a lack of satisfying WP:BK.--  十  八  21:09, 31 October 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.