Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ningyō Kyūtei Gakudan


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ningyō Kyūtei Gakudan

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

Please note that AfD refers to the article the page redirects to and not the redirect.

no indication that it meets WP:N -Zeus-uc 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. It's a brand new article, about a manga created by a notable mangaka. While this doesn't imply notability, it may well meet WP:NB and I will tag it for notability now. If, after some time, notability isn't established, we can discuss deletion again. But for now, notability seems likely enough that the article might be given a chance. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Current and ongoing manga from the creator of Angel Sanctuary? Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a person is notable and has created other notable publications does not mean that this one inherits that notability, please see WP:NB. I agree with you, however, that there's plenty of reason to believe that it might, based on the other established instances of notability. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  —Farix (Talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Notability isn't inherited, and six months generally isn't enough to show a manga is notable. A google search only returns 3 pages of Wp:copyvio scanlation sites and blogs. Anime News Network only gives a start date and author, not enough to show notability (the ANN encyclopedia is partially user editable - although additions and changes have to be approved by ANN before being changed/added). Additionally, ANN reports the title as Guignol Kyūtei Gakudan. I'm holding off on a delete/keep until other people report on potential RS sources, but im leaning towards delete until notability is proven  Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've moved the article to Guignol Kyūtei Gakudan which is the title used by the two reliable sources announcing the manga series (ANN and Mania). However, in my opinion, that isn't sufficient coverage from which notability can be presumed. --Farix (Talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There are news about the author starting that series but nothing else indicate that this series is notable. My issue is there is nothing to verify the content of the article. The content can modified to be hoax and i can't verify it unless i got my hand on the non-legal scanlation which is Wow A Great Prospect. I'm withholding my vote for now but i'm strongly inclined to delete as this article was only created because its scanlation exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrebMarkt (talk • contribs) 21:25, March 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The contents of the article is now entirely verifiable. Whether one needs to use illegal translations of the manga to verify plot information is not a verifiability concern. --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Poking about, I see this is getting a fair amount of fan notice, as one might expect given the, ah, avidity of Kaori Yuki's fans. The creator may not be mainstream popular, but her extended serials have a very good record of becoming critical darlings. It was probably too soon to create the article without said notice in hand, but I'm very much inclined to tag it for notability issues then wait and see whether the collective that is this collaborative encyclopedia can find more concrete references in due course. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see I forgot to explicitly state that this is a conditional keep for a few more months. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly a notable manga.  D r e a m Focus  02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any qualifiers for that statement? I'm not convinced. -Zeus-uc 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just ignore him. He's never given a solid argument for why articles that lack significant coverage by third-party sources should be kept beyond WP:ILIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 04:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What a rude statement. And I thought Anime News Network counted as a notable reference.  It has in other cases.  And there is no possible reason to delete this.  It isn't hurting anyone, and if you didn't care about it, you wouldn't find your way to it anyway, so wouldn't know it existed.  It is a confirmed series from an established writer, so leave it be.   D r e a m Focus  15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect After working on the author's article and conducing a search for the article on it's two English and Kanji names, I have been usable to come up with any additional reliable sources then the two already given on the article. Since both of these sources only cover the announcement of the manga series, they don't constitute significant coverage, as required by WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCE. One also has to consider that it has only ran for 9 or 10 issues. --Farix (Talk) 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, or remove all manga titled pages from wikipedia but top 10 sold. --hnnvansier (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your just being absurd. There are hundreds of manga that that passes the notability criteria and are not on a best sellers list. The key point is that they receive significant coverage by third-party sources. This manga series does not have that, in part because it is fairly new. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:FAILN. There have been sources that show that this manga is on its way to meeting WP:N and its child WP:NB. More sources most likely will be unearthed in the future and at this time its inappropriate to delete this article on notability reasons. (Also, noted that the article was JUST CREATED when it was sent to AfD and by a new editor as well. Quite the bloody welcome.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.[8] Otherwise, if deleting [...] For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for five days." - WP:FAILN  Which is what we're doing here.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." These sources may exist and a good faith effort is being made to find them, deleting this would be clearly the wrong move. Not to mention that this entire nomination is taking WP:BITE to new lows. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep -- As stated earlier, it might be notable. I recommend tagging it for notability and revisiting in a few months if sources haven't turned up.  Otherwise, I don't have a strong opinion about deleting or merging the article; just seems a shame to have to recreate it if indeed it is notable.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:20, 3 March 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.