Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuiguru Mix


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuiguru Mix

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

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, unnotable, unlicensed series. Fails WP:BK and does not meet the additional criteria allowed at WP:MOS-AM of being "licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan." either. Not listed at Anime News Network either. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I note that there's articles on both ja.wiki and zh.wiki, with the series licensed in Taiwain/Hong Kong. I strongly suggest that a search be done in the rest of east Asia before concluding that it has not, in fact, been licensed by another publisher. Frankly, it looks like the sort of series that would be, either in Veitnam or Indonesia. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the ZH one give a source for the claimed licensing? So far, all I've seen for it are scanslations with no actual coverage, not even on ANN. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From zh: . —tan³ tx 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then the other languages. --Farix (Talk) 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't demonstrate notability, no, but they do suggest notability exists -- especially articles in languages outside the country of origin. Enough of a suggestion, that I hestitate to !vote straight out based on not finding anything in English, until further research has been done. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Needs substantial independent coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, according to WP:BK, substantial independent coverage is not the only way to demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found discussion of what is apparently this series on a Korean chat board, which leads me to conclude that it has been licensed in South Korea. I cannot at the moment prove this with reliable sources, and my linguistic (in)abilities make it unlikely that I will be able to. As this would make this a second licensing outside of Japan: keep and remand to the relevant WikiProject(s) (Manga and Japan) to search for reliable sources to demonstrate notablity; if none are found within, say, six months (period suggested due to language barrier) revisit the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like desperate reasoning there. Besides, a books is not made notable based on the number of languages it has been officially translated into. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at WP:MOS-AM. It's a criterion that creates an assumption of notability -- if it's popular enough to have won an award or be mulitply licensed, we can reasonably assume there's material out there about it, even if we don't have it on hand at the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, a manual of style can't set criteria for notability. That is well outside of its scope. Second, that criteria does not have consensus back from other editors. If it did, it would be in WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BK claims to not apply to comic books. There was a long (and involved) discussion by WikiProject Anime and Manga editors that resulted in formally saying that WP:BK does indeed apply to manga with this additional possible criterion. (The discussion is somewhere in the WT:ANIME archives -- I'll have to search to find it.) It's documented in the AM MOS because, at the time, it seemed like the best place to put it. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject's shouldn't come up with additional notability criteria. Instead, they can only interprate and apply the existing notability guidelines. If they did create additional notability criteria, then we would be in a real huge mess since all that is needed is a small group of editors to come to gather, form a project, and then state anything they create is notable under their "criteria". --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 12 January 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.