Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuroko no Basket


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kuroko no Basket

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. Google search is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Contested prod. Farix (Talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Fairly new series that just started last month, not even a single volume released yet. No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just started, no buzz yet that I can find, not (yet) notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If you'r going to delete these pages then I suggest you do the same for every single useless page thats been on wikipedia Meister and the other new shonen jump series will eventually get enough to do one volume or enough for you people to actually leave it; as well as the other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.50.3 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point out that other bad articles exists is not a valid reason to keep a bad article. Nor is it required to go after them all at once. --Farix (Talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Weekly Shōnen Jump reason, once again. Dream Focus (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, appearing in WSJ does not give it any notability what so ever. It was published. And? That isn't notability, nor does a single solitary guideline support that claim at all. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not yet notable, doesn't seem to have much traction. Doceirias (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2009 (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.