Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4koma Manga Kingdom

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 No consensus or keep for now. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4koma Manga Kingdom

Effectively unverifiable, with no third party coverage in 12 unique ghits. MER-C 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, here's a pretty tangle. This manga article needs some serious cleaning up and wikifying and sourcing (and finishing translating into actual English), and I note that it's never been tagged as part of the relevant WikiProject, which means they've never been notified that it needs help. The ghits count in the nomination are not complete -- searching on 4コマまんが王国, the Japanese title, gives 982 hits even with -wikipedia, and given the number of bookstore hits, it seems likely there's third-party reviews among them (ETA: among the hits, given how much it's sold, I meant). (Interestingly, there are no ghits for "Yonkoma Manga Kingdom," which is the translation I would expect.) There's no way for anyone who doesn't read Japanese to adequately evaluate the notability and verifiability of the subject. So: Keep, notify WP:MANGA, and give them six months to work on it; if they don't improve it by then, then bring it back for another AfD. — Quasirandom 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for cleanup, added a stub tag and some categories, put a wikiproject template on the talk page, and added an entry to the project's list of cleanup requests. And, here, plead again to give the people who can work on it a chance. — Quasirandom 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, the fact that it's been continuously published for 16 years suggests that it's popular enough that some sort of third-party sources would have discussed it. — Quasirandom 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. — Fg2 10:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to have been published long enough to be interesting and notable as a manga series, and while there may be few English sources, that's not enough - need to show no Japanese sources. --Gwern (contribs) 21:30 16 November 2007 (GMT)
Keep if sources are added Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.