Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajin (manga)

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. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajin (manga)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (in Japanese)

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The page obviously needs work but I managed to find a couple of things that might help. Being a comparatively recent work by an newer author doesn't help it's case but there may be some more out there. A quick search on google will just turn up 30 scanlation sites, but I found two useful pages by using some common sense. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This manga's original title is 亜人. See also ja:亜人 (漫画). ひなどり(Hinadori) 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is pretty new and has since seen minor improvements since it was created. I see no WP:RUSH here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep from me as well but for different reasons. The problem with this sort of article is that it covers a subject still fairly new for this sort of media and isn't officially available in English which limits sourcing oppurtunities. It's doing decent sales figures though so there is a good chance it will stick around. The two items I added towards notability are both from the same english language web site, however they are simply english news items using notable Japanese language sources (Natalie is used by Yahoo Japan and others for news stories, Oricon is an official national chart company) so I don't see that being a cause for concern. I do think it's enough to keep the article, but I can see why some might find it less than convincing.Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would normally be premature to create an article on a series that only has two volumes, since it's not had the time to establish a solid fanbase much less get many English sources. In this case, however, it has two volumes and a nomination for the Manga Taisho award, which strongly suggests that it is a worthy topic for a stub: not only does that put us up to the standard minimal sourcing requirements, but even in the event of an early cancellation, a nominated series getting the axe will be news. --erachima talk 08:36, 10 February 2014 (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.