Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puella Magi Kazumi Magica


 * 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   merge to Puella Magi Madoka Magica. Courcelles 21:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Puella Magi Kazumi Magica

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After attempting a merge proposal, giving sufficient reasons why the article should not exist, I am now taking this to AFD, with the same reasons as given on that talk page, where I stated: I do not believe that Puella Magi Kazumi Magica should have it's own article, as it has not demonstrated enough notability in reliable, third-party sources to warrant a split from the main Puella Magi Madoka Magica article (or the List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica chapters article). All the article has is a short introduction and a quick plot overview. What the series is can be covered in the main article, while the plot info as well as the release info goes well in the chapters article. Any information on characters is already in the characters article, too. So there's really nothing more that can be put into Puella Magi Kazumi Magica to make it anything more than a stub. Even reception info could easily go in the main article, especially considering that it has a very sparse reception section to begin with.  十  八  23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Frankly, this shouldn't even be at AfD. After all, AfD is for deleting articles, not for something that is an obvious merge. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I attempted the merge, but was reverted. Then the user that reverted me suggested I take it to AFD, and here we are.--  十  八  23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question are we allowed to use text from TV Tropes? The talk page suggests that the TV Tropes page was used as a beginning for this article. --Malkinann (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming the text there does not violate any other copyrighted material, I believe so given that there is attribution. TV Tropes is indeed licensed CC-BY-SA, though we still have to verify its accuracy. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 02:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge It's not much of a merge compared to what the main page already has, it's almost deletion.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with no prejudice against recreation. CSE hits. The first volume of Kazumi was the 5th best selling manga that week, which is fairly impressive; and as we all know, Madoka in general was a monster hit, so we can expect the RSs to show up (in Japanese anyway) eventually. I'd suggest a Keep based on that, but apparently WP:CRYSTAL is now so broad that even works in popular franchises which will pass the GNG sooner or later are supposed to be deleted. --Gwern (contribs) 23:44 28 August 2011 (GMT)
 * I still say any reception could easily go in Puella Magi Madoka Magica, especially seeing as the current reception section is so small. There is simply not enough viable content to warrant the article's existence.--  十  八  03:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. If enough coverage comes forth, it can be separated out again in the future. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 04:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Puella Magi Madoka Magica - The search term is also a valid redirect here, while there is not much to merge there is some that can fit into the main article including the image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That image would be deemed decorative, and therefore not useful outside an infobox per WP:NFCC point 8.--  十  八  20:19, 30 August 2011 (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.