Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marugoto Anjyu Gakuen


 * 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 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Marugoto Anjyu Gakuen

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

An entirely non-notable short run manga series. Originally contained a copyvio plot summary from a scanlation distribution website and what remains is a basic character list. Google searches are only coming up with scanlation and other copyvio websites, but no reliable sources under both the Kanji and Romaji titles. Farix (Talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:N and [WP:BK]]. No significant coverage in any reliable sources, unlicensed series, and don't even see an ANN entry for it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 3 volumes series by Sae Amatsu with 2 more alternates names/spellings Marugoto Anju Gakuen and Marugoto Anjugakuen, referenced on ANN (Marugoto Anjugakuen naming). 176 hits on Google for Sae Amatsu Marugoto key words. No licensor in US/UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Unless someone can put two RS Japanese reviews or something similar, it will be a delete vote for me :( KrebMarkt 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm getting pretty much what KrebMarkt did. Looks like doofy fun if you like this sort of thing, but all I've found to even indicate notability is that there's a surprising amount of doujinshi for it, and fanfic ain't a notability criterion -- the rest are manga databases or scanlations. Unless Japanese notice can be demonstrated, I'm also leaning to delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Google its name and get 41,700 hits. I value the community over that of the opinions of reviewers, and of course not being officially released in English yet, and the fact that those you consider notable media do not review manga, means you can't really get a fair coverage of it.  Even those sites that do review manga, don't do it for all types out there.  But if this many people talk about it, clearly its worth noting.  Remember, the polices are just suggestions, everything decided by consensus.  Read: WP:BURO Dream Focus (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Policies and guidelines aren't to be ignored just because you find them inconvenient or because you disagree with them. But that is the bases of your logic. --Farix (Talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says "If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Read the rest of it as well please.  Dream Focus (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is not improved by the inclusion of this subject, and WP:IAR is not a blank check to, well, ignore all rules. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy after all. --Farix (Talk) 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As WP:EXCEPTIONS specifically points out, WP:IAR should only be applied if it leaves the rule in place, and cites using WP:IAR as a way to never apply WP:N as an act it does not apply to. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:"Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." - Google tests   -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete barely any important content on the page that couldn't be just as easily covered in the author's page. Does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines (WP:BK and WP:N).   -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JA article - any help? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. The only additional information it gives is the sort of tchochkes you got with the tankobon volumes and the URL of the official fansite -- the rest is all in-universe. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless reliable sources can be found that could be used to verify the information in the article and establish it's notability. As it is the article doesn't even really establish what it's about and I don't see how that can change without any sources. Guest9999 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You noticed the limit of the ANN reference for verify as it can only cover title, author and year of release. In no way it can cover the plot & character so the content of those article can be challenged easily. --KrebMarkt 09:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I guess, i gave enough time to provide RS refs :( --KrebMarkt 09:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails notability test (WP:BK). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:23, 16 February 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.