Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Kakusei Tenshi Misutoresu Fōchun


 * 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   userfy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Zettai Kakusei Tenshi Misutoresu Fōchun

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

Unnotable one-shot manga series; unlicensed and no significant coverage in reliable-third party sources, only minor mentions of its being published. Fails WP:BK. Prod removed with note saying "tag deleted, I ask that the article be taken to AfD for a wider debate." -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the subject fails notability criteria and is little more than a plot summary. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly fails WP:N, WP:BK, and WP:MOS-AM. However, the previous success of Arina Tanemura (All series before this one at least meet WP:MOS-AM). Reason leads us to believe that this series will soon be notable. That's why it doesn't seem right to vote for outright deletion. --Kelakagandy (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every book written by even a notable author is automatically notable. Notability does not inherit and, per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not operate on the idea of trying to guess that something will eventually be notable. As a side note, in some other recent AfDs, the validity of WP:MOS-AM has been challenged, which made lead to more of even licensed series being deleted if they have not received any coverage, same as any other book. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it fails every notability criterion under the sun, it would still be a suitable and verifiable merge/redirect to the author with a brief mention he made it. The work of notable people should be covered comprehensively even if it's not using a full separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, except it is already mentioned in the author's article, where we generally do not include plot summaries except for extraordinary circumstances (which this isn't). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was only considering a partial merge. My main point is that it should redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable work per WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Just because the author has become notable recently doesn't mean that all of his works are granted automatic notability. The work is also already mentioned in the author's article so there is no need to merge. --Farix (Talk) 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy (probably to User:Kelakagandy) under the very plausible assumption that the series will eventually be licensed and, when the reviews come in as they have done for all her other series, can show notability and so restored, and redirect the title to the author's article. Despite the news reports about the series, there is not yet enough information to demostrate notability, and the assumption above falls under WP:CRYSTAL. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Minor correction, but not all of her series have been reviewed yet. :P I.O.N, for example, has only been given a brief review in Publisher's Weekly (maybe, can't access the full article). I haven't found reviews for Short-Tempered Melancholic either. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I'm starting to worry about my memory, as I could have sworn I found out about I.O.N from an ANN review, and only bought it after reading a review. But, no, ANN admits to no such thing existing. Argh. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy per Quasirandom. I'd also like to point out that a one-shot means to me a single chapter, not three chapters that were released in a single volume (but then, I don't [get to] read many one-shots, so maybe Collectonian knows something I don't ;) ). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to vary. In other similar one volume releases, I've seen various reviews call them one-shots, which is where I picked it up from. :) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the English (or at least American) comics industry, it means strictly a single chapter/issue comic. When I first encountered manga fans calling a series collected in a single volume a one-shot, it confused me mightily. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that helps clarify. I'll have to keep that in mind in the future... 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy No reason to chuck it out completely as it may be useful in time. - Richfife (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2009 (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.