Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurarihyon no Mago (3rd 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   no consensus. To close as delete would not reflect consensus, to close as keep would misrepresent the debate as settled, and I see no agreement over possible merge or redirect targets. While those editors favouring deletion are in the minority, the claims to notability here are nebulous and not decisively convincing. Skomorokh, barbarian  06:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title still is not turning up any reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. Author also appears to be non-notable. Previously deleted at AfD but the article was recreated by a new account which has not edited anything beyond this article. The situation with the article hasn't changed since the previous AfD. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A CSD G4 request on this article has been declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete yet again. Still not notable and author is unnotable. It was pretty much recreated with a bit more OR/unverifiable information, and no real significant change, IMHO, but was different enough to avoid CSD. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - appearance in Shonen Jump and sales figures establish notability. Would also be willing to see a merge to an appropriate article (possibly Weekly Shonen Jump?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Weekly Shonen Jump or other article - the information is valid and worthwhile to an understanding of the publication it appears in, but it doesn't merit its own article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I don't think WP:NB is appropriate here; this is more akin to the situation of a character or episode from a TV show, and as such I can see how it might not meet the criteria for its own article but would merit this kind of coverage on the main page for the series. Perhaps reformat Weekly Shonen Jump to make room for this, or move it to a page of series featured in Weekly Shonen Jump. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Manga falls under WP:BK, which is completely appropriate. There is nothing to merge to Weekly Shonen Jump and reformating the article to include it would be inappropriate and ruin much of the good clean up that was done there in the last few months. That is an article on the magazine which lists only the titles running in it with basic info, no more. Its appearance in Shonen Jump does not establish any notability at all. Can you actually provide reliably sourcable sales figures showing it may have notability from that? Can you point to significant coverage of this series beyond a standard weekly report of sales figures of this particular work? If not, then it is not notable. As the author is also unnotable, re-deleting again is the most appropriate choice, with salting to prevent recreation until such time as real notability can be established. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply being serialized in a magazine is not a criteria for notability and has been repeatedly rejected as such in other AfDs. Notability is not inherited by the manga from the magazine. Nor is sells of bound volumes, also known as trade paperbacks, a criteria either, and has been rejected many times in the past as well. Also, do you realize just how many manga series have been serialized in Weekly Shonen Jump? Try several hundred to possibly over a thousand. The article about the magazine should be amount the magazine, not about every manga ever serialized in it. Also WP:BK does cover manga and manga is nothing like a character or a television series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your points generally, but when I say WP:BK doesn't apply, I mean by that that Weekly Shonen Jump is a notable book (or more accurately, periodic publication) in its own right, and that Nurarihyon no Mago might appropriately be viewed in the context of a column or regular feature within that notable publication. As such, the material contained within this article is useful and relevant to an understanding of Weekly Shonen Jump, and the mere fact that there may be an exceptionally large amount of similar material that may also meet that criteria does not of itself argue against the inclusion of this particular material.  I'll fully agree that it doesn't deserve an article in its own right - it should appear under Weekly Shonen Jump, and I've changed my initial vote accordingly - but delete is not the appropriate response. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WSJ isn't in the debate and is unrelated to WP:BK. Its notability does not confer to any title with in, and the material of this story is irrelevant to the magazine beyond "it appeared" which is already noted. There is nothing to merge and a redirect is not appropriate in this case. Its appearance in WSJ is temporary, not permanent, unlike what would happen if the author were notable enough for an article and then this redirected there (as the author will never change).-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how the notability of manga is determined, nor how manga has been handled on Wikipedia. Manga chapters are not "columns" nor are they treated as such. Also, you don't see any descriptions of "columns" in the articles for Newsweek or Time. Manga is treated just like other books under WP:BK and have for a long time. Articles about manga magazines are about the magazines, and not the manga that is serialized in them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: columns getting their own article - Dear Abby, Savage Love. Those of course withstand a test of independent notability, but it's wrong to say that a column is itself subject to WP:BK or intrinsically not capable of meeting a notability test.  Chicago Sun-Times makes a point of mentioning its most famous column, that of Roger Ebert, who then of course has his own article.  The Australian lists off all of its columnists, who then each have their own page on no greater notability than being a regular feature within that publication (eg Michael Stutchbury, Michael Costello).  I still say that this material is valuable to an understanding of Weekly Shonen Jump, and deserves its place in Wikipedia, the only question being where. (But thank you all for your very well-reasoned and intelligent arguments for the other side; I totally understand where you're coming from, I just disagree.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, manga is not a column, so those are not relevant comparisions at all. Apples to oranges. Further, Dear Abby is an unassessed article that has a merge discussion about it, and neither it nor Savage Love have been challenged for notability. Even further, both of those news paper articles are Start class, none of which are good examples of articles. However, we do have TWO GA level manga magazine articles to look at, which Weekly Shonen Jumps article is modeled on: Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump. The former has been peer reviewed and failed its recent FAC purely for lack of commentary because it was competing with an insane 60 candidates at the time. None of their peer reviews, GA reviews, etc, have said "should have more detail about the series", but some did question even having the series tables at all. Those are appropirate comparitions, and in neither of those cases do any of those magazines have any redirects from a single title to it, because the manga is independent from the magazine. Not all manga is serialized before hand, and in all FA/GA manga articles, the magazine it runs in is a single sentence mention unless it switches magazines (which has happened fairly frequently). Again, the materials is irrelevant to WSJ which already has enough details about the type of magazine it is, and its contents. f you intend to continue to try to compare normal magazines to anthologies, please at least bring forth similar FA and GA level works to compare to, not low class articles that have not, in fact, had any sort of peer review nor assessment by neutral parties. -- Collectonian  (talk ·' contribs) 03:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shojo Beat has an individual page for every single series that was featured during its run. So does Shonen Jump.  So it's no surprise no one felt those pages needed more detail on the series.  If that's the precedent you're citing, I think it argues strongly in favour of keeping Nurarihyon no Mago for the very reasons I've outlined above.  Once again, thank you for the passion, civility, intelligence and experience you're bringing to this debate but I just don't feel that precedent supports you or that your appeal to WP:BK is appropriate for a serialised sub-column of a notable publication (as opposed to free-standing independent publication). An adapatation of WP:EPISODE would be more relevant, which would indicate that if this page can't pass WP:N on its own merits, a short summary on Weekly Shonen Jump would be appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You still are not getting it. All of those series have individual pages because they are all notable per WP:BK, having multiple reviews and significant coverage in their own right, and their having articles doesn't have anything at all to do with their appearances in those magazines (they were, in fact, published FIRST, then serialized in those). They simply already existed. And sorry, but precedence FULLY supports that manga falls under WP:BK as per the actual consensus of the anime/manga project, discussion at WP:BK itself, and every other manga AfD that has happened in the last, oh 3-4 years, at least (that I have been on Wikipedia anyway). You seem to be completely unfamiliar with manga if you truly feel it is a "serialized sub-column" rather than an actual, free-standing work that just happens to be serialized in a magazine at some point. Many manga series are published straight to book form without serialization. No, WP:Episode is not at all an appropriate adaptation for manga. Again, WP:BK is the guideline used for manga per proper consensus here, by the project, and at BK itself, along of course with [{WP:N]] itself. Your continued argument that anything else is more applicable, again, speaks to a seeming overall lack of knowledge about manga as a whole. And no, a short summary in WSJ is not appropriate and would immediately be removed as per any proper magazine article. While your seeming passion for an article you have no personal stake in and for a topic you've never worked in (that I can recall) is interesting, in truth, your have not shown a single bit of notability for this manga series, you have not given any valid reason for a merge to WSJ despite having already been told it would not be appropriate, and in short, it seems unlikely this argument will do anything else but continue to go around in circles as two people who are very knowledgeable about manga have attempted to correct your initial errors but you seem unwilling to accept those basic truths, and, of course, you will never convince us to believe your view as it is wholly incorrect as I've already stated. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two separate things here: (a) the free standing publication of the work, to which WP:BK applies, and which thereby fails the notability test, and (b) its serialisation in Weekly Shonen Jump. I'm saying that instance (b) is notable within the context of the notability of Weekly Shonen Jump, and if its appearance there is not sufficiently notable for a page all of its own, the relevant material should nevertheless appear on WSJ's own page in an abridged format to enable a better understanding of that publication and its content.  I don't think it's unreasonable that where a publication has a regular ongoing feature spanning a significant number of contiguous issues which uses a substantial portion of its page count, that those researching that publication might expect to find a synopsis, history, and creative credits for that feature appearing on the publication's main page. Therefore, the appropriate outcome is Merge. Once again, to be clear, I'm not arguing about the publication of the manga in its own right - that is clearly not notable under WP:BK.  I'm talking about its appearance in WSJ. And again, thank you for your passion and experience. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, that the it has not spanned a significant number of issues nor does it use a substantial portion of its page count. WSJ currently has 22-23 manga series running, most only having 20-30 pages in an issue (not significant portion). WSJ has spanned over 2000 issues. It has appeared in less than 70 of those. Again, not significant. Many series have run far longer. I take it you have never seen nor read WSJ at all? It is not even a feature series, just one of many running. Again, a synopsis is NOT appropriate, and the title, start date, and author is already in the article. Again, nothing else belongs in WSJ and again, a redirect (not a merge) is not appropriate. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan or subscriber to WSJ but I'm familiar with the publication's format (and more familiar still with similar publications such as Shonen Jump). To some extent a lack of immersion in the subject matter is an advantage here in that it brings a sense of perspective; for example I think under any reasonable view, 20 x 70 pages is a fairly significant contribution to WSJ's total output (or indeed the outcome of any periodical) and deserving of some analysis on the WSJ page.  The fact that many other serialised stories may also be deserving of that attention is not of itself an argument for delete rather than merge (see WP:NOTPAPER).  But look, I've put my argument as best as I can, and you've put your argument quite forcefully and convincingly.  I suspect given other commenters here, and the past debates on this very article, that you're going to prevail, but if so I'd hope you won't be successful for lack of a well put contrary viewpoint.  Thank you again for your excellent contribution to this debate. - 05:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DustFormsWords (talk • contribs)


 * Comment As I said last time, I just don't think it's worth the fight. It's managed a modest level of success in a tough magazine; in another year it may land an anime deal and become demonstrably notable, or it might fade out and be forgotten and can be deleted without people recreating it all the time. Doceirias (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't let some argue nonstop and get you to give up on what you believe is right. It has been featured in a popular magazine, which has a very high number of readers, a reasonable number of which must read it in order for it to remain.  It has more people reading it than many bestselling novels.  Wikipedia is not a collection of rules, things formed by common sense and consensus of whoever is around at the time to post their opinions.   D r e a m Focus  19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about? The fundamental basis of Wikipedia is people working together to form consensus and the rules that such collaboration produces. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus means the opinion of whoever is around at the time, to argue until the other side gives up. The overwhelming majority of people see a long ongoing debate, and don't bother to participate at all.  So its just a very small number of people that decide things.  No voting has ever been done on any of the guidelines.  Wikipedia isn't running out of space, and if you don't like it, you aren't going to find it anyway, unless you just like searching for things you dislike and wish to destroy.  No general vote has ever been done on guidelines, so I just ignore them as the policy ignore all rules says to do, and use common sense.  Remember WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.  If you think the Wikipedia is better off with articles like this, that clearly have large numbers of readers, then keep it.  If you believe something is actually gained by mass destruction of something some would find interesting to read, and those who didn't would never be able to find and notice anyway, then you have the right to state your opinion also.   D r e a m Focus  23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the origins of Wikipedia. Every single policy and guideline arose from the consensus of the community. Absolutely nothing was pre-existing. No deity gave us the five pillars. Even if a vote per se wasn't taken (although a lot were), the guidelines are the result of the collective mind deciding what's best for the project. Your initial statement was so amazingly wrong that I had to point it out, and your cynicism in the follow up indicates that this might not be the place for you. The way Wikipedia evolved is the result of people - everyone, from the bureaucrats to the anon IPs - editing over the span of years, and you're really claiming that the whole thing, all 3+ million articles with tens of thousands of contributors, boils down to a pissing contest? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most delusional things I've ever read, honestly. No one short of the people who are entirely devoted to this site have any say in the rules here at all. Wikipedia was formed by a handful of the userbase deciding on one thing, and then using that small circlejerk to decide on a few more things, followed by even more things under those decisions in a cascading motion that no one can argue against. Wikipedia isn't the utopia you've fooled yourself into thinking it is, it's really just a small, thick ball of recluses spending all their waking hours micromanaging and molding the work of millions of people to their personal views of what they think this place should be. At least, that's how the entire entertainment and fiction division of the site works. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Collectonian. She is an expert on these matters. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Collectonian's certainly a smart and eloquent editor with a long history of constructive improvement of manga articles on Wikipedia. But her arguments should stand or fall on their own merits; saying "She's been right before so she's probably right now" is no more helpful than saying "She was wrong those couple of times so she might be wrong now".  See WP:ADHOM - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You saying that is no more helpful than saying "I am going to heckle you because you agree with the person that I disagree with." Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not heckling you; your interest and contribution to the debate is appreciated and enriches Wikipedia. I'm just saying that an ad hominem argument doesn't go any way to understanding who's made the better case here.  I've got a lot of respect for Collectonian and her very substantial contribution to the project and I'd never go so far as to attack someone for agreeing with her.  I'd encourage you to expand out your Keep argument to say why you personally believe Collectonian (or anyone else) is correct. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that you wouldn't have made any response to my !vote if I had said "Keep per DustFromWords. He's knows whats up". By the way, I stated that deletion is the best option. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I would have expected Collectonian (or someone else of that viewpoint) to have pulled you up for it, and they would have been perfectly correct. I guess what I'm asking you is, why do you believe it should be deleted?  Being a debate and not a vote, what we're looking for is more analysis of the issue, rather than just an unexplained declaration of support for one side or the other. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that you're trying to explain AFD practices to me using an authoritative tone (particularly a fan of the "what we're looking for") and linking to ATA, but I'll play along.
 * It's obviously non-notable. I didn't turn up any sources. People who I know to be more familiar with the genre and available offline/foreign/obscure sources are saying that there is no significant coverage. The author is seemingly non-notable as well, which strongly indicates that his individual works are almost certainly non-notable. On top of that, it was deleted once already, recreated by a spa, and back at AFD within a month. I can't see the previous version to know if the G4 decline was valid, but I tend to believe Farix and Collectonian (both of which I have seen being level headed in AFDs numerous times before) wouldn't lie that the deleted version is comparable to the new one. Note, I am not endorsing their views just because it's them, but I am instead using them as additional source of facts. Namely, that references do not exist in places that I don't have easy access to and that this version is substantially similar to the deleted version. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's non-notable. Which is why it should be merged with WSJ or the list of WSJ series; both of those articles DO meet the notability criteria, and the information here assists in an understanding of those topics. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll echo Quasirandom's thoughts on merging right below. His analogy is apt. Please don't make the same reply to me as you did to him. I've read this entire discussion. You're simply not making any convincing arguments for the retention of this material in any form. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the previous AFDs, I cannot convince myself to say delete or keep, because while there's extensive indications the subject notable, I have nothing that concretely meets the cold, hard rules of WP:BK. However, I must register strong opposition to merging to Weekly Shonen Jump. Listing and discussing every series that magazine has ever run is as inappropriate as, say, listing and discussing every short story and essay to be published in The New Yorker in that magazine's article. Which is a close analogy, btw, if you allow for the difference between serialized and one-time publication. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure why we would allow for the difference between serialised and one time publication. Either the information is useful and relevant to an understanding of WSJ, or it's not.  If it's useful, it should be in Wikipedia and if it's not it shouldn't.  Once we establish it should be in Wikipedia, the next question is whether it has a page of its own, appears on the WSJ page, or appears via some compromise. If you feel including this on WSJ would make the article too bulky or cause a disproportionate amount of detail in one section, have you considered creating a page for List of series appearing in Weekly Shonen Jump and putting the data there? - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being "useful" is not a criteria for being on Wikipedia. And there is already a list, which is at List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump (and needs renaming), which contains the full historical list. This list is clearly linked from the WSJ article above its list of current series... and no, it would not be an appropriate place to have a summary of the work or anything else beyond title, author, dates, etc. as it has now. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Being useful" isn't the words I used. I said "useful and relevant to an understanding of WSJ".  If X is a topic that passes the notability test, and Y is appropriately sourced information that meaningfully enhances an understanding of X, then Y belongs in the encyclopaedia.  Wikipedia is not paper and if information otherwises passes the tests for inclusion, the mere fact that there's rather a lot of it does not defeat its inclusion.  Your argument for not merging this with the list seems to be that it would result in the list article being a very long article; that's (to my mind) not a particularly strong argument and if it's recognised in any of Wikipedia's policies I'd genuinely appreciate having it drawn to my attention.  (WP:EVERYTHING isn't the relevant one - we're talking about material that otherwise passes tests for inclusion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that it is not relevant to an understanding of WSJ. Jump is a manga anthology which has been in circulation since 1968, and in its 41-year history, countless series just like Nurarihyon have passed through its pages. Saying, then, that there should be some sort of plot summary and other info for Nurarihyon beyond what's already on the series list means we must also do the same for all other series without articles (and, probably, all series with articles) which Jump has ever carried - an unthinkable situation. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It has pretty good sales, as mentioned several times in previous comments by others, and it did receive the 2007 Gold Future Cup award . —Tokek (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there an actual source to that claim? Foreign language Wikipedias are not reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has a source. I just used Google translate and found it. I'm adding that to the article.  Proves that it is in fact a favorite of those who read the magazine, and thus quite notable.   D r e a m Focus  14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is Weekly Shonen Jump the very publisher of this manga. Not very credible. --KrebMarkt 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Their readers do a survey, and they publish the results. Being number one in Jump is fairly impressive for any manga.  Do you doubt the claims that this manga won that award?   D r e a m Focus  17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt the notability of this award. Something awarded by Jump to a mangaka of Jump based on the vote of Jump readers. Marketing & communication at full throttle. --KrebMarkt 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The 4th and 5th volumes of it, published on its own, sold over a 100,000 copies each! Being a bestselling book, does make you notable, by the laws of common sense.  Will the closing administrator please note that fact.   D r e a m Focus  15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 100,000 copies is not a particularly spectacular seller for manga -- respectable success, but not a huge one. The real bestsellers sell over a million copies per volume in Japan. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't "laws of common sense" an oxymoron? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no common sense. ;) 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump While not a bestseller, 100,000+ copies for two diffrent volumes is still pretty good. Are there resources that prove the manga won an award and were Hiragana and Katakana looked up as well for sources? Another option Id go with is just redirecting to Weekly Shōnen Jump. —Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (AT)
 * Based on the description of the "award", I am extremely hesitant to say it would actually confer notability of any type to the series (popularity polls run by the publisher can't be used to establish notability of individual characters to my knowledge, so why should it be any different if the subject of the poll is series instead of characters?). 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jump "homebrew" award for their best rookie or so and more a popularity contest. --KrebMarkt 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Its readers voted it the most popular series in Jump for that year. The notability guidelines were passed(by small numbers of people, not a general vote) to prevent the Wikipedia from filling up with "cruft", as they called it.  It wasn't created to keep things, which are read by over a hundred thousand people, from getting at least a basic entry.  The encyclopedia isn't complete if leaves things like this out.   D r e a m Focus  21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the right venue to discuss your perceived faults in Wikipedia policy adoption. Please try to stay focused. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DreamFocus is only restating WP:NOTHING, which is a perfectly valid point. And Wikipedia policy is built through active polite good-faith discussions exactly like this one. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, policy is not decided on individual AFDs. Broad statements about the origins of notability contribute nothing to the discussion at hand, especially when those statements simultaneously ignore the fact that those policies are what dictate inclusion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate against my own "merge" position, Dream Focus above has identified the relevant policy WP:N, made an argument presenting her belief as to the intent and spirit of that policy, made an implied reference to the fact that passing or failing WP:N only creates a presumption for or against notability and not a definitive judgement of it, and then used all that to found an argument for WP:IAR. It's shorthand, but it's valid.  And it's probably better to address that argument on its merits rather than to dismiss it out of hand for perceived technical shortcomings in its presentation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a rule about the spirit of the rule, not the letter of the law. And a single AFD does affect the guidelines at times.  I recall after everyone saying that having a successful opening in theaters in Japan made an anime notable, Collectonian rushed over and changed the guideline to include that.  If enough people were convinced to agree that sales did equal notability, and the hardcore campers at those policies didn't argue with them until they gave up in frustration, or contact all of their friends to edit war revert changes constantly, the guidelines could be changed.  Until there is a general vote involving a significant number of people that edit the Wikipedia, to determine what is and what is not notable, you can't expect any reasonable minded person to take those things seriously anyway.   D r e a m Focus  14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The series is very vast and is gaining popularity, there isn't any reason to delete it.--Twilight Mage (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point to reliable sources that actually show it is notable, not just "vast" whatever that means, and that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The series started as a one-shot and received enough attention to gain a weekly serialization and has earned a Drama CD. I'm attempting to find a link to it winning the future gold cup award --Twilight Mage (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever the outcome here, it also needs to be applied to List of Nurarihyon no Mago characters, and take note of User:Twilight Mage's sandboxes for Nurarihyon no Mago and List of Nurarihyon no Mago characters. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretty obviously notable and quite popular. I don't even comprehend what the problem is here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you claim keep is the best course when you, as you put it, "don't even comprehend the problem"? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's much more about me not comprehending the existence of a problem, because there really isn't one. This article shouldn't even have been glanced at in the first place. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policy-based reasoning or can your !vote be summed up as simply "there's no problem because I say there's no problem"? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any logical reasoning or can your "!vote" be summed up as simply "I can't think in concepts other than black and white, so delete this"? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should we be thinking in any terms other than black-and-white when it comes to notability? Even if we limit ourselves strictly to the notability guidelines, there is still some room for interpretation, and the above discussion (and previous AfD discussions) make it quite evident that this series comes just about as close as possible to falling squarely within that range of interpretation. The fact that you don't seem to like the policies and guidelines here doesn't negate the fact that they exist, have consensus, and must be followed, nor is it a valid argument for keeping an article. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're thinking in black and white in regards to "lol policy" and "lol not policy" while not running a single line of thought across what "notability" even is or how you're benefiting the encyclopedia or its readers. Any moron in a real-life situation would acknowledge that an ongoing book series put out by a major publisher with a few hundred thousand readers which managed to be serialized and garner a fair amount of popularity in a major magazine and managed to get some sort of spin-off/adaption media produced is "notable".
 * What exactly are you attempting to do here? This is the part I really want to know. Are you removing this content to make this site better organized? Are you trying to remove possibly false information? Are you attempting to take down an advertisement? Just what kind of advantage or benefit, in your personal view, will the deletion and shunning of this content give Wikipedia? This isn't an internet forum or blog with a bunch of worthless users and posts you're micromanaging here, you're actively allowing and disallowing information from reaching the millions of people who use this site as a resource. Knowing what your own intentions are is important. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please carefully review everything I have said in this discussion - not once have I actually voiced my opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. All of my comments have been observations either on this discussion (responses to other arguments) or comments related to the article (pointing out the existence of the character list and userspace sandboxes). I have purposely avoided giving an actual opinion on how to handle the article because I am not as familiar with the notability guidelines as the others who have provided their opinions, and I don't particularly feel like doing much research for myself on the matter (and if you wish to fault me for that, by all means do so), but in particular, nowhere have I suggested that I think the article should be deleted. Kept, deleted, merged, redirected, userfied, transwikied... it really doesn't matter to me, but if it were up to me, ignoring policy and guidelines, I would probably leave the article in place, or at the least userfy it for now. -- as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, terribly sorry. I thought I was still talking to the other guy when I posted that. My bad. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am rather disappointed to hear that, as it suggests you are arguing based on who you're talking with, rather than on the merits of their arguments. AFDs are not the proper venue to pursue a personal agenda with or against other editors. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was still arguing against the merits of his argument, it's just that I accidentally accused you of being in favor of a solid deletion when that wasn't the case. I have no personal agenda against the other guy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 08:57, 7 October 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.