Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaFlora, the Princess Academy


 * 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. As per WP:PROD  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  08:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

LaFlora, the Princess Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deadlinks to Thai language websites archive examinations even with translate do not have sufficient GNG passage. Also reads like an advert. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It's kid's book so it's harder to quantify its GNG (likely coverage would be in mom's or kid's media, not mainstream ones). Here are some news that I found.  --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, largely because most of the nominating statement doesn't make much sense to me. Deletion is not cleanup (although I lean toward deletionism); dead links and non-English sources can still meet WP:V, and a promotional tone can be rewritten to meet WP:NPOV. The subject may meet WP:NCOMIC for a series.  Mini  apolis  17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I felt like I pretty clearly said that the sources I looked at using translate and archive.org did not pass GNG. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I linked to the subject-specific guideline; sometimes WP:GNG is too broad. I was concerned about your other caveats (dead links and POV).  Mini  apolis  23:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I wrote that notability guideline and still don't think that it qualifies. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that. Since you're a better judge of comic notability than I am, I'm changing my vote to delete; sorry for the deprod.  Mini  apolis  17:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I was only able to identify sources similar to Lerdsuwa's, and IMO they don't satisfy the GNG. The subject would warrant a paragraph or a section in an article about the publisher, but I don't think it has real-world notability to stand alone as an article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2019 (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.