Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiden Rose


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Rose

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

Non-notable manga series. Almost no coverage by reliable third party sources. The OVA adaptation also appears to be equally non-notable. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Farix (Talk) 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no significant coverage in reliable-third party sources, no reviews, nothing. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The manga has been licensed in English by DramaQueen, but they do not seem to have published it yet (even though they licensed it in 2007), and the OVA was released on 29 May, three weeks ago. So I'm not surprised that reviews of it are light on the ground. If it's been licensed in other languages, I haven't found it yet. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like DramaQueen hasn't even updated their website since September 07, so seems unlikely it ever will be published. Purportedly they were seeking investors in 08 for months that never came...suspect it is a dead or almost dead company, which rather sucks as their few releases were fairly decently done and they hit some of the more explicit stuff others wouldn't touch. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would explain it. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (CE) In addition to the OVA, there was also a drama CD adaptation. Has anyone evaluated Akibanana for reliability? My guess is it isn't, but they do rave about the series. Also, I note that while ANN doesn't have a series page, it does find promotional events related to the OVA notable enough to report on. Otherwise, it's mostly just fansquee and scans/subs. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding more arguments for delete. No ANN reference for the Manga, the OVA & the author, just the news you mentioned. The Drama CD didn't chart in Oricon album chart  so it doesn't count as a notable adaptation. I found no licensor in France & Germany. I will probably vote delete as verifiable contents is too limited to write what we call an article and even if Akibanana turns to be RS (which i hope so) we would still need one review to have a balanced article and satisfy WP:BK --KrebMarkt 18:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward a weak delete myself, unless more info comes to light. It's one of those frustrating series (all too common among yaoi and hentai) that has all sorts of hints of notability but nothing to show it conclusively pass WP:BK. From what I read about it, if DramaQueen had managed to publish it, I have every expectation it would have gotten good reviews -- but that didn't happen. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question - if there'd been coverage of fan outcry about the botched release, would it be notable? It's awfully hard to prove notability in a case where it hasn't won any awards in Japan and isn't released in English (so no English reviews).  --Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if the fan outcry received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If it hasn't won awards, been reviewed,, or even been covered at all, it isn't notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, haven't been able to find anything so far on fan outcry. Just curious, as DramaQueen have a habit of doing this to their titles. --Malkinann (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you can find reliable coverage of outcry, but so far I've only seen it mentioned in ... reviews, at which point you have reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We won't see often another Kodomo no Jikan --KrebMarkt 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Anime News Network wouldn't be talking about it, if it wasn't notable.  The OVA is based on a notable series by a notable artists.   D r e a m Focus  08:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteAppears to be just passing coverage stating that the promotional video was available. Perhaps it might receive coverage in the future, however it doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines at this time.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to formalize my comment above: weak delete -- numerous hints of notability, but nothing has been found to demonstrate it meets the letter of rigid law. No prejudice against recreation if more solid evidence of notability is uncovered. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete with no prejudice for recreation when real concrete RS coverages will be available instead of hints of notability. --KrebMarkt 15:27, 26 June 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.