Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiniro Mosaic


 * 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kiniro Mosaic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a manga, which is being adapted into an anime. References are primary or tertiary. No indication in the article or on Google of how this book meets the standards for notability of WP:NBOOK or the standards for presumption of WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – I wouldn't be so hasty to delete—being turned into an anime means that it could likely be notable. Also, there is a likelihood that there are far more Japanese sources than English ones—reliable sources need not be in English, as far as I know. Bensci54 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and source the article more - While searching Japanese sources I found (An official youtube page), and better (an official Anime site) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - being adapted into an anime is usually considered to be a claim to notability, since they will eventually gain coverage anyway. Also, not all manga are adapted so it's still significant. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand - while additional sources (and additional content) are needed desperatly, this seems to clear the notability bar. The nominator is also reminded that offline sources are acceptable; a mere negative on Google does not equate a lack of notability, and also the sources must only exist, not be in the article, to pass N. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:51, 28 January 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.