Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagatachō Strawberry


 * 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. Google hits do not confer notability, and the arguments of those indicating a lack of notability are not well-countered by any specific reference to our inclusion policies and guidelines as they stand today. Multiple independent sources are required to satisfy WP:BK and features like readership size, prress conferences and the like cannot be used to establish the required level of notability. Happy to entertain comments on my talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nagatachō Strawberry
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable book that fails WP:BK. Previous AfD closed as "keep" but had almost no participation, one of the two keeps was based on a invalid (and since removed and rejected) notability standard and the other came from an editor who says keeps to all AfDs. As this was over four months ago, DRV is not an appropriate venue for a new discussion. After that AfD, a discussion began on redirecting/merging to Mayu Sakai, during which no reliable sources could be found to establish the book's notabiltiy beyond one semi-reliable review. Extensive searching was done in multiple languages. Discussion seemed to clearly indicate redirect was appropriate due to this lack of significant coverage as the title was not notable, but others disagree. This title fails WP:BK and WP:N. It has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A single review does not make a book or a manga notable. WP:BK requires multiple non-trivial sources, which this article simply doesn't have. WP:N requires that coverage by third-party sources must be significant, which a single review is not. --Farix (Talk) 18:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep First off, I do not say Keep to all AFD. The previous AFD closed as KEEP. The merge discussion showed that the German magazine review of it, did count as notable, and that the article should be kept.  D r e a m Focus  18:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:N and WP:RS. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect Nagatachō Strawberry 5 vols complere series by Mayu Sakai. No licensor in France and Italy. Licensed in Germany & Spain Spanish Ed. Without any review i'm inclined to delete but i will give some time for people to find RS reviews and change my vote. Be happy, i'm made the effort to seek for evidences notability and spend around 10 mins toying with keys words on Google. --KrebMarkt 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit refined my opinion into Delete & redirect to Mayu Sakai --KrebMarkt 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After searching again, I am still only able to find the single German review I located before. WP:BK requires multiple reviews, which in this case we have not got. That said, delete is inappropriate -- it's a valid search term that at the very least should redirect to the author's article. If said article was more than a stub/start article, there'd be a place to selectively merge material from the work's article, but as there is, alas, none, that makes me say redirect . If we ever uncover other reviews (from, say, additional licenses) the contents of the article will be available in the history, for restoration. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep in light of additional reviews linked to below, which are in my opinion enough make the work pass WP:BK. I strongly encourage everyone who has participated in this discussion to review their position. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason I don't support redirecting is because of one particular editor's longstanding history of disrupting mergers and redirects. I think its better to simply burn the bridge. --Farix (Talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Meaning if I noticed the AFD ended in KEEP, and someone then goes and eliminates the article awhile later placing a redirect there instead, I object. Is that it?  The manga was notable enough to be translated into different languages, the author is well known, and if there was someone who spoke Japanese to search, I'm sure coverage in Japanese media sources would be easily found.   D r e a m Focus  20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This reasoning suggests you treat AfD results as an end-all, preempting any further discussion (and many of your actions support this view). However, the results of AfD discussions are only applicable within the context of the discussions - that is, they only determine what happens to the article as of the time the discussion is closed, and often, further discussion is encouraged or necessary (most obviously in cases of no consensus, but also for merge/redirect and even for keep sometimes). It probably isn't going to do much good explaining this to you, but at least I can say I've tried. =P 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus is KEEP, that means KEEP. If the nominate fails to get something deleted, she does not have the right to just replace the article with a redirect later on.  A proper merge discussion would be appropriate if done before any edit warring to stop a redirect, and there was something that was actually going to be merged, you not just calling it that and deleting everything(but keeping the history of course, as though that matters) and putting a redirect where the article was.  You form a consensus, and you follow that consensus.   D r e a m Focus  14:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - an AfD ending in "keep" means "resume normal editing", not "this article is fine as it is". pablo hablo. 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Normal editing does not mean eliminate everything, and replace it with a redirect.  D r e a m Focus  16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, if the article cannot establish independent notability and a proper merge/redirect target exists. And a discussion is not required for merges or redirects, although it is certainly encouraged. This is one point you seem to seriously refuse to get. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus was KEEP. It was determined notable in the last AFD, and hopefully will be deemed notable this time around as well.  You can't ignore the consensus of an AFD, simply because you don't get your way.    D r e a m Focus  18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus defaulted to keep simply because no one bothered to argue for deletion - that doesn't make the keep !votes valid or good. It wasn't determined notable, and indeed, notability is not determined by an AfD; it can only be shown to be notable in the course of the AfD. As for "hopefully being deemed notable this time around", my magic 8-ball says "Prospects not good" with only one review. And this isn't about me "getting my way" - I haven't actually !voted in this debate at all, and basically ignored the first one. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply put, AfD is not a crucible for inclusion. All it does is determine if an article and all of it's history should be deleted. --Farix (Talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Farix: I can't say I'm amenable to arguments to the effect that we need to burn the house to save the village. Especially when we need something on the lot. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Procedural KEEP per the previous AfD of this article by this nom less than 4 months ago which DID end in a keep per the closure of admin MBisanz, who looked at the discussion and made his decision. Not agreeing with the admin's decision is no reason to repeatedly return it again to AfD in order to reach the decision thenom disagreed with the previous times. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement, so redirecting it or bringing it back to AfD conflicts with WP:PRESERVE and WP:POTENTIAL. Yes, consensus can change... but in 4 months? With respects to the nom's good faith, it would best serve the project to give this one time to flower.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering one of the only two keeps was based a false notability guideline that was rejected for addition to WP:BK, it is perfectly valid to revisit the discussion. And considering the series is not on-going, unless it is licensed by another company, it is unlikely to ever flower beyond people adding more plot.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was the "false notabilty guideline" made false before the previous keep AfD?... or ws it during the previous Keep AfD?...or was it sometime after the previous Keep Afd? I have faith in admin MBisanz's ability to interpret existing guideline when reviewing discussionsbefore forming his opinion to keep or delete.  And in your stating that it must be licensed by another company in order to show notability, and that it is unlikely to happen, is that indicative of it at one time having notability that it has somehow lost?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The last AfD closed January 22, 2009. The notability standard was removed from WP:MOS-AM on January 19, 2009 per consensus that no project has the ability to set new notability standards, and then it was taken to WP:BK for discussion as possible inclusion there on January 21st. That discussion ran until January 29, 2009, and consensus there upheld that number of translations is not indicative of notability and should not be added as an option in WP:BK. The discussions started before the AfD ended, but did not end until it was over. So before you ask it, its doubtful MBisanz was aware of the change or the discussion as that particular AfD got so little attention, it was never noted. However, that is something you can ask him yourself. I'm saying it never had notability, not that another license would give it notability. I was referring to the general idea that another license might result in new reviews/discussion in the new country. Thus far, it seems unlikely this series will ever have notability or that it ever will be licensed, but in either case it isn't Wikipedia's job to give it false notability or presume it has it on the basis of someone else's hopes. The series was released from 2002-2004. Unless its relicensed in another country, it is unlikely to receive significant coverage now as it is "old". How often are any book reviewed or discussed years after the fact unless they have large, sustained notability. No one found any notability 4 months ago, no one found any 2 months ago, presuming some will appear eventually just because it was licensed and released in Germany (also done there), is acting on the idea of future notability, and giving notability where it doesn't exist. In the end, it is on the shoulders of those claiming this topic has notability to prove it with reliable, third-party sources, rather than try to claim there "must" be some because it exists.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, procedural keep is a totally bogus thing to claim, especially for something from four months ago. This is not a relisting of something from yesterday that had a strong consensus. Please vote on merits and not WP:POINTy tangents that have nothing to do with whether somethign should stay or go. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bogus? Fine, I'll strike the "procedural" but not my opinion of the process. So... if this is "somehow" "kept" again, and you again disagree with the closer, will you continue to re-nominate every 4 months until you get it finally removed? Or might repeated nominations be themselves considered a bit of a WP:POINTy "tangent"? Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment When the original AfD was closed, I was tempted to take it to WP:DRV because there clearly wasn't a keep consensus. However, because there was no consensus to either keep or delete and the end result wouldn't have changed, overturning the closing would simply be process-wonkery. --Farix (Talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Better resolve here and now than a long protracted edit warfare. Procedural keep will just displace the conflict elsewhere. This article (or so) doesn't have the required sources & references to verify its contents other than number of volumes, release date and isbn. The rest is bound to be removed because it will fail WP:V that means plot elements, setting and characters. It will be a de-facto vicious but legal burial of the article. --KrebMarkt 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * plot setting and character, as far as it goes for basic description, can be taken from the work itself. Interpretation, of course, must be sourced. DGG (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently only the existence of the Manga can be proven . The plot summary uses as source a well know non-legal free to read Manga website and won't pass for a reliable source. There is nothing to oppose the article to be trimmed to near-nothing. All come some people being ill informed enough to think they can write an article using blog, fan sites, and scanlation sites as sources --KrebMarkt 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * weak keep for what it is worth there are 5,150 google hits on this subject. I can't find few if very many sources in English. Ikip (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I use G-hits as a check and occasionally mention them but if that is your sole reason for keeping, the closing editor should ignore your opinion as it is expressly NOT a measure of notability and for good reason. Drawn Some (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You sound a lot like another editor.
 * If this is obvious to closing nominator, why point this out to me, allowing me to change my reasoning for keep? The only logical reason for you to say this is that this is closing admins regularly don't dimiss this reason to keep, and you are saying this in the hopes the closing nomiator will be influenced by  your words, and dismiss my comments. Ikip (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks notability, and the sources that exist show only that it is exists but not that it's notable enough for a full article.  DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources is supposed to be addressed through WP:CLEANUP, not AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you deal with non existence of source ? --KrebMarkt 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There has to be some indication of importance. It needs someone who can work with the Japanese references. Not being able to, I accept the judgment of the Japanese WP that an article is justified. I think thisis a reasonable approach till we find a better. DGG (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What other Wiki's do does not effect this Wikipedia. Others do not have the same notability standards, and the Japanese wiki pretty much constantly lacks references at all; many of our articles on Japanese manga/anime series are far better than those there. Unless, of course, you always want to "accept the judgement of the Japanese WP" that characters/episodes/chapters should never have their own lists and should instead all be covered in one article with no other information included?-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG's suggestion of a keep per its current inclusion in the Japanese Wiki is reasonable and prudent, since we are not here to judge the work of others. His suggestion that Japanese reading wikipedians be sought is quite amenable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Also, since we are looking at the Japanese Wiki, the article was deleted there before, but because the Japanese wiki allows even IPs to create articles, it was recreated after a year. In either case, AGF has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor is this an issue for the systematic bias essay. Nor does it make commonsense to mirror other wikis only when its convenient for backing a keep argument or shall we use the lack of JA articles to delete tons and tons and tons of stuff here?-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge BEFORE seems to be have followed before the nomination: if there seriously aren't any sources besides a semi-reliable German review, I doubt that an article is warranted Sceptre (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell with my somewhat rusty German, that review site counts as a reliable source -- it certainly has markers that, in an English comics review site, would make me presume reliability. However, the reliability has not yet been confirmed by WP:RS/N (or at least, I haven't taken it there yet, for lack of time). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Paid reviewer even not much and with all markers of RS (Editorial policy, clear visibility on who they are, etc..). I personally count that one as RS but one review alone won't do to pass WP:BK criteria #1 --KrebMarkt 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Quasirandom WP:RS/N will redirect you to the GERMANY to evaluate if it is a RS. So if you ask do it there --KrebMarkt 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Useful to know; I'll start with other there, then -- when I manage to get it together. And yes, exactly, that one even reliable review isn't enough -- thus my !vote above. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to point out it was published in a very popular magazine, which has been around since 1955, released monthly. A lot of people have read the series.  I know the nominator doesn't believe number of readers make something notable, but a lot of us do as evident in previous AFDs, and I'm hoping most people will consider that.  The series wouldn't have been around for almost two years, if it wasn't being read by a significant number of people.  A magazine doesn't last that long, without knowing its audience.  It ran its course, as series like this are meant to have an ending, then the writer moved on to her next series, which I believe the same magazine carried.  Since [Ribon] has its target audience as young girls roughly 9–13 years old, you can't expect to find a lot of third party media reviews for it.  Thus that notability guideline, a suggestion on how to do things not an absolute law, shouldn't be your only means of making a decision.  Based on its number of readers alone, and the popularity of the writer(she having a long career with several notable series), should indicate it is notable.   D r e a m Focus  15:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Number of readers was rejected as a notability criteria, period. One book AfD does not change that, compared to dozens and dozens of others for this genre. You claim it was read by a significant number of people, however you can not prove this. Wikipedia is not for your personal opinions, guesses, or presumptions. It is for verifiable information. You can't prove anyone read it without sources. Nor is claiming the writer is popular a valid argument, when you can't prove that either using reliable sources. The only sources on her article verify the publication of some of her works. Japanese manga magazines do not operate on the principles being claimed here when it comes to what series are rune.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Number of readers rejected, by the small number of people who go to the guideline page, and argue nonstop until everyone else gives up in frustration, and they get their way. All guideline pages have constant edits and reverts, and people arguing the same things without end.  You have to just ignore all rules, and use common sense.  The guidelines are just suggestions on how things should be done, not actual rules.  Is there any reasonable doubt that a lot of people have read this series?   D r e a m Focus  16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people also read yesterday's edition of the Wall Street Journal, but that doesn't mean that issue is getting its own article. Just because this series was serialized in a popular magazine doesn't mean it was read by a lot of people; it's incredibly easy to skip 15 pages. Do you have any actual readership statistics for this series that are backed up by reliable sources? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While the notability guidelines are just guidelines, they do establish an objective test to determine what topics to include. That is far better then the subjective tests you always apply. Besides, you are misrepresenting the Dragons of Summer Flame AFD. It was kept because it was listed as a bestseller on a widely recognized list bestseller list. Editors presume that a work that archives this feat will likely be covered by book reviewers. It wasn't kept on arguments that it was popular. --Farix (Talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no. Read the arguments.  We agreed that being a bestseller made you notable, not needing anything else.  There were no expectations that there would be reviews found elsewhere, since certain types of media just don't get reviews, and thus that not a reasonable requirement for something at all.  A considerable number of books on the bestsellers list these days, never get any reviews at all.  And my point was, you can ignore the guidelines, they suggestions, not policy.  I don't think this manga would have been released in different languages, and have been in such a long running and successful magazine that long, if it wasn't also highly read, and had high sales.  How often do they bother to translate something, if it didn't sell very well in Japan first?   D r e a m Focus  18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Zombiepowder., Tite Kubo's first work, was canceled after four volumes in Japan because of mediocre sales; it's been picked up by a number of licensors (though arguably this has more to do with the popularity of Bleach than anything else). Notability is not inherited between the magazine a series was serialized in and the series itself, regardless of how long-running, successful, or popular the magazine is. And a bestseller spot is not an automatic ticket to inclusion; it merely means it's more likely that the book has notability. The burden is still on those editors who want the article kept to demonstrate notability via multiple nontrivial reviews; if this cannot be done, the article can still be merged or deleted. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete since no reliable sources have been found by anyone that would help this approach, let along surpass, the notability threshold.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. One reliable source review has been found. I agree this isn't enough, but I do wish people would get these things right. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect - insufficient coverage in reliable sources has been provided to demonstrate notability. If the article is redirected, it can always be recreated if sufficient sources are later found. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per short but useful book review at Excite Japan. Also per these two at Guangdong News. I cannot read Chinese, but 草莓星愿 is the Chinese title of this manga. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote notable. Thanks for the find.  It mentions the author visiting Taiwan, and how famous she is there.  Then it talks about the Nagatacho Strawberry manga. Google translator  I guess that'll prove notability for those not already convinced.   D r e a m Focus  00:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an other in Chinese, but I cannot be sure about the reliability. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have the wrong link to the Excite review, which should be this. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone confirm that it's a short review rather than a new release line-up blurb as translation tool seems to imply Thanks --KrebMarkt 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting the link Quasirandom. It is about various manga related to the world of politics. It summarizes the story of Nagatachō Strawberry and says that the main character's father (the prime minister) is beautifully drawn; however there is not much about politics, rather just about the protagonist being popular. The image caption tell the author, publisher and magazine name. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not sound like a full review, or really even a short one, but more like a publication announcement. Can anyone confirm that the any of those Chinese sources are reliable (and that the book was legitimately licensed there?) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would a major news source announce the author arriving to visit Taiwan, if her stuff wasn't legitimately licensed there? Would she go down there to discuss her work, if her stuff wasn't being legally sold?  They could've mentioned any of her stuff, but did this one.  I don't think you could have anything longer written about the series, it not that complicated.  There was enough detail to be more than just a passing mention.  I believe that establishes notability quite well.   D r e a m Focus  15:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does everyone agree that having a press confidence in Taiwan, to talk about the end of this manga series, and it listed as "very popular", indicates it is a notable series?  D r e a m Focus  16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you put the wrong link? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fixed it now.   D r e a m Focus  16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Anyone can hold a press conference, that doesn't make them notable, nor is the author discussing herself a third-party source. And that's presuming (big presumption) the translator is getting it even half way correct. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And would they cover a press conference for anyone, about the end of a series, if the series wasn't notable? I find it unlikely reporters would go down there and speak to her, if the series wasn't notable.   D r e a m Focus  16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably would (need to remember, other countries media outlets do not work the same as Americas), and you, again, presuming that the translator is getting its grammar correct (which I doubt). She is a notable author, so she holds a press conference, people likely will come. Curiously, did most than one reporter actually report on the conference? Seems odd if it was such a big deal that only one made even a brief mention of it (and note, the mention isn't even a full interview, but mostly a press release style summary of the work). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had it checked. It says that she held a press conference in Taipei, and she was exited to see the poster for Nagatachō Strawberry. She then had a book signing session in Kaohsiung, and that Nagatachō Strawberry is popular in Taiwan, not just among young girls, but also boys. The fourth paragraph is a plot summary of Nagatachō Strawberry. There is more, but not related to this article. There might be other articles about her visit to Taiwan that Google News didn't find. This appears to be a mainland news site, so there should be some Taiwanese news too. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on your description, the coverage is about Sakai's trip with coverage of Nagatachō Strawberry as mostly background (ie trivial) information. --Farix (Talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. There is a whole paragraph about the plot of Nagatachō Strawberry. The visit appears to have been to promote this manga. Trivial would be if it was an interview with some minor celebrity that just mention it as favorite manga or something. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call including a summary of the story as non-trivial coverage. But whether this should be considered towards notability depends on what the article's focus is about. Is it about Sakai's trip or is it about the manga? --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does not have to be entirely or primarily about the book to establish notability. Trivial is a much lower threshold. Mentioning a book without saying anything about it is trivial. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put in a request to WP:ANIME for more input about this particular source. We do need more people to weigh in. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Press conferences are specifically listed as not the types for showing notability "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc
 * SNGs like WP:BK are descendant of the GNG, therefore the press conference still can't be used and it's unlikely she meets the criteria of a world reknown author for BK. じん  ない  05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The press conference itself does not establish notability. The news coverage of the conference and the book does. The news article is independent of the subject. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you misinterpret what defines notability. The press release itself as the author is not of such historically significant stature that any statement by her as such could be seen as notable as anyone can hold a press conference and in most cases, at least someone from the press will show up. じん  ない  23:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Here the links to Taiwanese publisher release. The series was released in Taiwan between 2004-2005. That confirm an official licensor there. --KrebMarkt 09:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep sources need to be found and added to the article. There do seem to some available and yet more likely exist in non-English languages. Obviously these will take time to find, translate and apply. I'm not seeing any harm to a well-written stub but I do caution those who want to see this survive that the sources do have to be found and added or those wanting to delete it will be back. -- Banj e  b oi   07:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have looked into the mentioned German review website. Splashcomics is the first site (founded in 1996) of the Splashpages network. Splashcomics claims to be cooperating with several trade fairs and publishers, most notably Carlsen Comics, Tokyopop Germany, and the Frankfurt Book Fair. Splashpages also claims to be cooperating with Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures Switzerland, and Warner Home Video Schweiz. - Is the website reliable for the statement of their authors' opinions? Are their opinions worth mentioning? I don't know. Decide yourselves. - If there are specific questions about the website, I hereby offer to try and answer them. Good raise  20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where on that site does it say that? What exactly does it say?  Cooperating, as in, advertising or selling products of them, or cooperating with them on anti-pirate?  Be specific.  Another editor who reads German already vouched for them as legitimate.  And I believe most of us who said Keep, are convinced by the Taiwan coverage already.   D r e a m Focus  00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It says so at the very bottom of their site, specifically it says "Unsere Kooperationspartner: Buchmesse Frankfurt - Comic Action - Comickeeper - Batman Fansite - Comixene - Inkplosion - Carlsen Comics - Ehapa - Reprodukt - Tokyopop - Edition 52 - Blitz Verlag - Lustige Taschenbücher - Comicinsel". "Unsere Kooperationspartner" translates to "our cooperation partners". That's all. They also have an impressum and a staff page, but there's not much information I'd consider useful. For example the sub-page of the publisher and editor-in-chief contains a lot of information, a history of the site, his martial status, even his ICQ number, but no credentials. What I don't understand is what you mean with "legitimate". Good raise  01:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources that Apoc found suggest that there may be other non-English sources lurking out there that would serve to solidly establish notability. However, there are enough concerns with the sources Apoc presented to keep me from !voting a straight keep. Therefore, I have to say userfy for now. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 02:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources presented thus far (except the german-langauge review) do not appear to constitute significant coverage of the topic. It is doubtful that these brief mentions could be sufficient even for a substantial stub article.  No prejudice against re-creation should more sources turn up, and I highly recommend userfying the article.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am in agreement with those who have pointed to the lack of significant coverage and insufficient evidence of notability per our inclusion standards. Good nom btw; well put. Eusebeus (talk) 18:12, 26 May 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.