Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of the Moonlight Cutter


 * 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 keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. -- jonny - m t  03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tales of the Moonlight Cutter

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

This is a non-notable graphic novel per WP:FICTION. Gary King (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a work of fiction with objective existence, not a fictional work -- as such WP:FICT does not apply. The closest notablity guideline that applies is WP:BK, and even that claims may not apply to graphic novels. Please be more careful in your deletion rationales in the future. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As to the article itself, this looks to be a borderline case. I am finding notice of the series outside of booksellers, but of apparently semi-reliable sources: that is, comics reviews sites, rather than pure blogs. Some of these may be considered fully reliable in the comics community, and as such, this needs to be evaluated by an expert in the field. I withhold deciding either way for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep this article talks about it, but you have to go to the library.  - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: In addition to the above mentions, it's also discussed here, and has recently been optioned for a feature film. While neither of those alone are sufficient for WP:BK, when both are taken together with the fact that WP:BK isn't targeted at graphic novels (as Quasirandom notes), I think it is definitely definitely notable enough to merit retention. jSarek (talk) 00:45, 26 February 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.