Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nana to Kaoru


 * 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. since already Transwiki'd by Dreamfocus Scott Mac 11:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nana to Kaoru

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No assertion of notability. Search for third party sources only comes up with a couple of trivial mentions related to changes in a manga magazine. No significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources found to pass WP:BK. Contested prod by IP with a history of deprodding every manga-related articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks notability, I have included it on the lists over at Young Animal and Young Animal Arashi however. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Peaked at #30 in monthly sales, and otherwise coverage has been very throwaway and limited as far as my CSE can see. --Gwern (contribs) 05:48 11 August 2010 (GMT)
 * Not again! Ugh, this is getting ridiculus. I go to Wikipedia when I want to look up something I do not know about, even if is something obscure like a comic that is in top 30. I suppose I should just quit trying to add articles on obscure subjects cause they all get deleted anyway. What is the point of having for all practical purposes unlimited storage space if you are only going to use it to for articles on famous subjects most people already know about. I really hate the notability policy. It ruined wikipedia and I for one am tired of it. So long and adieu. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We agreed on the writing of an encyclopedia but we never had a definitive agreement on the contents of that encyclopedia. Unfortunately the line has to be draw somewhere and sorry for you to be one the wrong side of the fence. Your statement is incorrect about English Wikipedia being made of articles on famous subjects most people already know about. Wikipedia is made of articles written by people who have the will, the technological means and enough English mastery to write on subjects of their liking. In no way this premise would guaranty that what Should be covered subjects by Wikipedia will have articles. A good example in manga field would be Yoshihiro Tatsumi A Drifting Life despite all the coverage it received and two Eisner awards is still lingering in the Animanga project requested articles department. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bla bla bla, obviously there is a delitionism Vs. Inclusionism debate raging all over wikipedia and the internet. You make it sound like there is a concensus amongst the community to delete everything on wikipedia which is obviously very wrong or you are refering to we as in you and I. Which then I highly dispute cause I for one do not see the point of delitionism. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Meuuhhh.... Stop playing "The Good guys vs the Bad guys". That kind of dogmatic rhetoric has been played over and over on Wikipedia to the point of ad nauseam. That kind of self-righteousness speech can only convince the convinced. It's difficult to be a supportive of article created on "It exists" x "I read the illegal scanlation" x "I like it" because those articles very rarely give a fuck to Verifiability, No Original Research & Quality. Now back to the subject:
 * Nana to Kaoru 4-ongoing? volumes series by Ryuta Amazume published by Hakusensha ja1 ja2 ja3 ja4, serialized in Young Animal Arishi first before moving to Young Animal. No evidence of passing either General notability guideline or Specific inclusion guideline for books found within my capabilities. No licensor found in French, German, Spanish & Italian. Based on that the article should deleted.
 * Side-note: I just provided more sources to assert the facts in the article which current among is 0 "unsourced". --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The line should be drawn on common sense. If it was in the top 30, its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  And Lord Metroid, if you get tired of watching things like this get deleted constantly, please just start making new articles over at http://manga.wikia.com where they'll be safe.  I'll transwiki this one over there now.   D r e a m Focus  01:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to the manga wikia. At this time, this series seems to be not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Malkinann (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (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.