Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garouden


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Garouden

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

no claim of notability since March 2007. I'd need more understanding of Japanese to expand the AFDing Montchav (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Fg2 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Has been adapted as an anime, a film, and at least two video games, and so meets the notability requirements of WP:BK #3. The article is, however, stubby enough not to mention this -- a translation of the high notes from the Japanese Wikipedia article seems to be in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, per style guidelines, it should be rewritten to put the novels first, then the derivative works (manga and film) afterwards. I'm not yet clear on whether the anime was based from the novels directly, or from the manga. The film is directly from the novels (it predates the manga). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the lead per the above, which means the assertion of notability per WP:BK 3 is now made, which means the deletion rationale is now invalid. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This subject appears to be as notable as the many others of this type. --Stormbay (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep if Quasirandom is correct, although I'd argue a successful manga series doesn't need all the other parts of a franchise to be notable. --Gwern (contribs) 21:13 30 January 2008 (GMT)


 * 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.