Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Google RS search turns up nothing put illegal scanlations and forum and blog comments. The Japanese artice does not have any reliable sources listed either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. After I went through the CSE results, I wound up deleting all but 8 hits, which survive only because I'm not comfortable banning their domains. None of them are interesting or significant in any way. --Gwern (contribs) 19:10 23 March 2010 (GMT)
 * Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare a 4-ongoing vols series by Setsuri TSUZUKI published by Akita Shoten. No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Italy & Spain. Licensed by Tong Li Publishing in Taiwan. Based on all those available facts i'm leaning Delete for now as there are not enough evidences to pass any inclusion guidelines. --KrebMarkt 10:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding any significant, and precious little insignificant, evidence of notability. Pending reviews in Japanese or Chinese, delete as failing WP:BK. No prejudice against recreation should it break out as a hit or be adapted as an anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Published in a notable magazine, Princess (magazine), long enough to be proven notable. You know by now that no matter how notable something is, you aren't likely to find any reviews for this type of thing, since why would any manga related magazine review something carried by their competition?   D r e a m Focus  23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been repeated time and time again, being serialized or published in a magazine does not make a manga notable by any means. The notability of the magazine is not inherited by the manga. You know full well that notability is based on coverage by reliable third-party sources and not on first-party publications. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is decided on consensus, which is the opinions of whoever is around at the time to comment, and the opinions of whoever closes the AFD. Sometimes articles like this are saved, sometimes not.  And I believe I have repeated this time and again also.  There no sense in having this same discussion every single time.   D r e a m Focus  00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason we keep having the same conversation is because you keep starting the same conversation with frivolous reasonings, so don't put the blame on others. Notability is decided by WP:N as you know fully, which requires reliable third party sources, You know this, stop pretending you don't or that it's something you can ignore or twist into the same nonsense as usual. If you don't want to keep having the same conversation, I strongly suggest you try and understand why you keep getting into it. As you've been told dozens of times, being in a notable magazine does not make an individual series notable. The issue here is not what you think it is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NThis page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The guidelines are just a suggestion, as I have pointed out many times before.  They were passed by a small number of people, without the consensus or even knowledge of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors.  Topics with absolutely no proof of notability, do survive quite often.  Policies must be followed, not guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  06:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats exactly what I'm talking about, you are completely dismissing guidelines for being "suggestions" and not being consensus when thats the opposite of what they are. For starters the guideline box at the top of the articles states changes should reflect consensus, which means that yes, guidelines are still a established consensus. And per WP:G - Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence. The problem is that you read "common sense" as "ignore because its only a guideline". At the end of the day one of the main differences between policy and guidelines outside of legal areas is that policy outranks guidelines if the two conflict. In this case it's extremely unlikely that the guideline will be overruled by the policy because the Notability guideline actually supports WP:V rather then conflict with it - as notability in third party sources provide verifiable details. If you don't want your votes ignored or dissected, don't insist on ignoring or twisting things to suit your grasping at straws. You are quoting what the page says but not actually reading the meaning."Occasional exceptions", not ignoring the guideline in every afd under the guise of common sense when you just happen to dislike guidelines in general. When you start using your own common sense, you can start lecturing others over it. Guidelines should be followed unless you have a good case not to, this isn't one of them. You've no cause to complain about any of this as long as you keep up this nonsense. The work doesn't pass WP:N, instead of keeping up the war against a consensual guideline, provide actual proof this article passes the guideline, or why the guideline should be overruled (with well thought out reasoning, not false claims about the validity of the guideline). If you want to keep articles, giving flimsy claims and ignoring guidelines isn't going to help you. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the claim above, being an individual series published as an individual part of a magazine does not make that series notable, and notability requires discussion in reliable third party sources (WP:N). And currently fails WP:V entirely.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:20, 26 March 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.