Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizards Nation


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wizards Nation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested WP:PROD. This manga does not show notability by WP:N or WP:BK. Malkinann (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Published in a notable manga magazine, they believing it notable, and a far better judge than us. Four collections/volumes published so far.   D r e a m Focus  03:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The not inherited bit means being related to someone famous doesn't make you famous. That has nothing to do with things like this.  A manga series is notable if it is published by a major manga magazine for a time.   D r e a m Focus  12:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability of the magazine is not inherited by the manga serialized in it. And WP:V, which is derived from a quote by Wikipedia's founder Jimbo, is very clear that if a topic does not have any coverage by reliable third-party sources, it should not have an article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that "notability" from the perspective of a magazine has no bearing on "notability" from our perspective - their only concern is whether the series appears successful/popular, and neither of those is an automatic ticket to inclusion. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "they believing it notable, and a far better judge than us," if publishers could accurately predict what is or is not going to catch on, there would be no need for remainder stores. There are products from all industries that aren't notable, because they sink like a stone despite the companies' best efforts. And, in fact, we are the better judges, because we have hindsight, which is always better than a guess beforehand. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No apparent coverage by reliable third-party source. Article is fundamentally a plot summary with almost no real-world context. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE Being serialized in a magazine does not make something notable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fail both WP:BK & the GNG. No relevant coverage found. No licensor found in English, French, German, Spanish & Italian. For a work dating back from 2007, the scanlation has just begun and is at vol. 1 chap 3. It is not a source of big excitement with the fandom. --KrebMarkt 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears in a notable publication, but that doesn't mean this particular manga is notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:58, 28 June 2010 (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.