Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanaharu Naruko


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hanaharu Naruko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of significant notability. No significant references at all despite article being around since 2008. Only refs are a blog in Japanese and own web-site  Velella  Velella Talk 16:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This may be difficult to judge because the artist seems to be active in the hentai adult subgenre of manga, which is not subject to the usual coverage. Though it seems sites devoted to that treat this artist prominently:, . I don't know these sites well, but it seems they claim that his book Shojo Material was a big hit: , , , , , etc. This claims that it was the number one selling book in the genre in 2008. I can't judge the reliability of these sites. But he has also drawn mass market manga, one of which, Kamichu, has both been translated into French . And he is involved in anime production, doing the character design for Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet: (note that including his name in the title of the article in a mainstream news site may indicate some general notability). I couldn't find any interviews on the web, but some seem to exist ( and there were published comments: . Again, it is hard to judge notability of marginal fields, but there seems to be good coverage for this field. Michitaro (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources found, please add them into the article so we don't have a repeat AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep sources have been found.  D r e a m Focus  21:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep, notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their not being used in an article. Cavarrone 05:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I was being cautious given by unfamiliarity with the sites, but given others' confidence, I vote "keep". Michitaro (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2013 (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.