Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurarihyon no Mago (2nd nomination)


 * 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   to delete the article. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No clear indication to me that sales figures are for this manga on its own as opposed to its parent. Article is still lacking independant, third party sources that set out how it could pass WP:N, even after the first AfD. -- Ged UK  10:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nurarihyon no Mago
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable manga series. Completely fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no reviews, doesn't even appear to have an Anime News Network listing. Beyond being able to verify it exists, there is nothing about it. Last AfD closed as no-consensus. Two months allowed for additional notability, and no changes to the article at all.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Amazon.co.jp can provide verifiability, as Collectonian notes. It doesn't have an official ANN page but does have listings in comic rankings as fifth and ninth. A review found is from an unreliable, fan-based source. Disclaimer: I read this series too at one point. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my original nomination. The subject still fails WP:N and WP:BK, and WP:BK has rejected the addition of sales figures/rankings as a benchmark for inclusion since the original nomination. --Farix (Talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No vote, same as before. I found no reliable coverage in English aside from the basic publication facts, so by objective measures this seems to fail WP:BK. However, the amount of notice this series gets, in multiple wikipedias and a wide variety of sources, some marginally reliable and a lot non-reliable, convinces me that the series is in fact notable, even if I cannot demonstrate it, and while I can't convince myself to say "keep", I cannot say any form of delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Personally, I think a book that sells 100,000 copies in a single week (from one of the links posted by NocturneNoir) is notable. While I know that there wasn't consensus on WP:BK to add sales figures as a criteria, the reasons against doing so seemed to be that people could site deceptive statistics (e.g. high placing in a sales chart in a tiny country, or sales figures inflated by the publisher), and not that high sales or a high sales ranking didn't indicate notability.  I don't think these sales figures are deceptive (Japan isn't a tiny country, and the publisher would have to be very stupid to ship vastly too many copies by the third volume of the series).  I also find it odd a comparable ranking from the same sorce (Oricon, which ANN is citing) would be considered as evidence of notibility for a song but not for a manga. Calathan (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Featured in Weekly Shōnen Jump, a very popular manga magazine. Has several volumes published already, and appears to be selling quite well.  Remember, the guidelines are not policy, just suggestions of what works sometimes.  It says on the notability page, that sometimes you should WP:Ignore all rules and use wp:Common sense instead.   D r e a m Focus  13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently, you think that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines never work because you always suggest we ignore them at AFD. Being serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump means nothing. Popularity =/= notability. Nor do sells figures or rankings, which were recently been rejected at WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rejected by the small number of people who posted there, stating that it should be a certain way. I can't really take a guideline serious, that 99.9% of wikipedia users never had any say in.  People should just think for themselves, and make a decision based on common sense.  If it is obvious something has a large number of readers, don't their opinions make it more notable, than just a review from a single newspaper reviewer?   D r e a m Focus  02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, you couldn't "win", so you are going to pretend it didn't matter. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have weight, and they can't be dismissed because you don't like them. You argued for a change of consensus, it didn't occur. That's how Wikipedia works. But also, one aspect of WP:IAR is that it should never undermine existing polices and guidelines. It should only be invoiced when following them doesn't make any sense or is clearly harmful to Wikipedia's purpose, building an encyclopedia. You consent invoking of WP:IAR in every AFD clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding of the policy. --Farix (Talk) 03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. I had the same viewpoint before trying to change the guidelines into something more reasonable.  And stay focused on the topic please.  If most people believe that it is common sense to have an article, for any established series in one of the most popular manga magazines in the world, then the article will be preserved, is sometimes happens.  If they prefer to follow the guideline, which is not absolute law, then they'll delete it, do to the fact that this type of media almost never gets any third party reviews.   D r e a m Focus  03:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But still rejected. Wikipedia's polices and guidelines are built on consensus. To create a consensus, editors need to participate in the discussions. It is bad faith to marginalize those who choose to participate in the discussions process by always dismissing the policies and guidelines outright because you didn't like them and couldn't change consensus. --Farix (Talk) 04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete mostly per Farix above. This doesn't meet WP:BK as we can't find independant, third-party sources that mention it nontrivally and discuss its relationship with the real world.  Sales figures mean nothing as notability isn't the same as popularity.  Them  From  Space  16:54, 22 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.