Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario-kun (Pikkapika Comics)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario-kun (Pikkapika Comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources needed to show notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A couple of weeks ago I did some work on that article (including renaming it) and could find no source covering it further than ones assessing its existence See the article's talk for details.  Salvidrim (talk)
 * Comment Also, I did a PROD on Sep-22, which was contested by Dream Focus, which I will notify of this AfD to make sure he has his say. Salvidrim (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Super Mario franchise is insanely popular and profitable, having vast amounts of money from its various merchandise, not just its games. This series only ended when the author died from a stroke.  If someone who speaks Japanese can do some searching, surely this series got coverage.   D r e a m Focus  18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, when did I even come close to implying that the Super Mario franchise, or any particular part of it besides this series, was not notable? Just because something has "Super Mario" in it's title does not make it inherit all of the series' notability. You've been around here way to long to be casting these !votes like these. Use some logical thinking next time. Cheers! --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misread what I wrote. Do you think Nintendo would allow a manga to continue for their most popular franchise, for years, if it wasn't selling quite well?  They do keep tight control over their properties.  Places that review manga, surely mentioned this somewhere.   D r e a m Focus  18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely the fact that Nintendo "approved" of it does not make it notable. Think about the incredible amount of items (from backpacks to slippers to pens, etc.) that Nintendo sells or have approve the sale of -- yes they make money, perhaps they have good sales, but it does not ensure notability.  Also, you raise the same reason to oppose this AfD as the reason you raised to oppose the PROD, which is there must be sources, please search.  As explained above and on the article's talk page, all of my attempts at reasearch returned nothing but a lack of coverage... if you are so confident there are sources, perhaps you might have better luck than me finding them?  If presented with reliable third-party coverage assessing notability, I'll be happy to edit it in the article and withdraw my vote here. Salvidrim (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DreamFocus, have you found any independent, reliable and significant source? I'd be happy to do the work and incorporate it into the article if there's anything to be found. :) Salvidrim (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's simply not enough (if any) sources. There may be tons in Japanese, but waiting around for someone fluent in Japanese who would take the time to do the research is not practical in the least. If not delete, merge with Hiroshi Takase. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That was indeed an idea, but the author's page itself doesn't really look that good from any sensible point of view. But it does link here, so even if this is deleted no info is lost (as there is really no info to speak of, outside of the Shogagukan page, which will simply be used as a ref on the author's page. Salvidrim (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of third party sources, and content in general. What's the point of having an article with virtually no content? Sergecross73   msg me   12:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The creator and main editor until me & DreamFocus came around, Victory93 has been notified (both of the PROD and the ensuing AfD), and while he has edited just yesterday, hasn't taken the time to manifest himself. Salvidrim (talk) 18:11, 17 October 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.