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   no consensus. Unresolved issue of whether the sources qualify as reliable. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gamble Fish

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a manga with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BK. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a manga running in Weekly Shōnen Champion with 15 published book collections is certainly notable, although sourcing is likely to be Japanese language only. The Japanese Wikipedia article has some sources which may be a starting point. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nomination fails WP:BEFORE - no discussion at the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BEFORE is a recommendation, not a requirement. Nor is there a requirement for a discussion on the article's talk page before an AfD nomination. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that is not a speedy keep criterion -- prior consultation on the page about notability concerns is a strongly suggested courtesy but not an actual requirement. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it is the lack of a notability assertion that led me to initiate this AfD, given that I couldn't find an article on the author. To me, the lack of an assertion of notability (as opposed to a notability asserted but not supported) is enough to bypass WP:BEFORE. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Commment A 15 vols-ongoing series published by Akita Shoten. No licensor outside Japan. Absent not only from Anime News Network database but also from the reported news, meaning not a single volume of this series made it into the Japanese manga charts. --KrebMarkt 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A series doesn't last 15 volumes without some sort of popularity, which suggests but does not affirm notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as online English sources, Gamble is almost non-existent: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Gamble+Fish%22 --Gwern (contribs) 16:23 31 January 2010 (GMT)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable magazine that's been around since 1969, features this, thus vast numbers of potential readers for the series exist. The series wouldn't last that long in a popular magazine without a significant number of fans.  Manga related magazines don't often review manga found in their competition's magazines, nor are most manga reviewed anywhere at all, thus the suggested guidelines aren't relevant here, you having to ignore them and think for yourself, using common sense.   D r e a m Focus  21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability can't be inherited, no volumes among the 15 released managed to make it into the manga charts and there no much hype around it in manga fan community with scanlation lagging behind with less than half of the chapters done. Call to good sense is based on the credits you give to the editor making the call. --KrebMarkt 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For now, a discussion can easily be brought up on the talk page on japanese reference finding and such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pushing for no consensus. This article notability issue is not resolved. Saying it has 15 volumes just won't make me vote keep, it just stopped me for voting delete. No evidence of notability were provided and only the existence of the series was asserted. If nothing change this one will be back to Afd for another that's certainty. If such thing occurs, i wish to avoid keep vote based it was keep in the previous Afd argument. Closing admin should read my position as vote to counterweight the Keep votes and aiming for no consensus result. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can vote for no consensus, and I'm not sure it'll fly given only the nominator has actually said delete. There's circumstantial evidence of notability, enough so I'm unwilling to say delete, but nothing at hand that demonstrates it to the callous letter of The Law, so I'm also unwilling to say keep outright. I'm going with no vote here. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Week delete While 15 published volumes is an indication of notability, there has been no reliable third-party sources presented for this series. Without them, the article can be nothing more than a mere a plot summary. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and expand, using on the sources in the Japanese article. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (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.