Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation (sairai)


 * 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 -- JForget  23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation (sairai)

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

Contested prod. This is an unreferenced article for what seems to be non-notable fiction. The only hit I see for this with a Google search is the Wikipedia page. Doing further searches for the author in relation to writing fiction provide very little information. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Possible hoax - I can find no information on this in Japanese, it is not listed on Amazon.jp, and the link to the Japanese wikipedia is either fake or links to a deleted page. Doceirias (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems it was deleted. — Dino  guy  1000  21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, looks like an attack page, to me.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this makes me think of another article that got sent to AfD and deleted. — Dino guy  1000  21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. Just another version of "Goat and Wolf" from the same editor. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of demonstratable notability. Doesn't qualify, I think, for speedy as the article is sufficiently different from the deleted Goat and Wolf piece -- indeed, this is a better, more coherent article than the one I remember. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While certainly better written than Goat and Wolf the lack of publisher, publication date, length, and uncertainty about the number of pages seems to indicate this is an intended self-published work.  Self-published works are seldom notable and there's no indication this is an exception, besides Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Edward321 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (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.