Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurarihyon no Mago

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 to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurarihyon no Mago[edit]

No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Prod contested using an WP:OSE rational relating to Star Trek and Buffy episodes. Farix (Talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also included:

List of Nurarihyon No Mago chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Unnotable manga series with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article is pure plot. Also delete List of Nurarihyon No Mago chapters with it, which appears to have been an unnecessary split with no sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that, including in with this discussion. --Farix (Talk) 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk ·

contribs) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really sure when all manga in Jump started getting articles, but this does appear to be the one series in the lot that is stable and successful. The others are all canceled or going to be canceled soon. Doceirias (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it started from all of these nav templates listing every series that ran in Weekly Shōnen Jump. --Farix (Talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JA wiki articel is much more extensive and has five sources. I didn't check the Chinese wiki article, the spanish wiki article, or the Russian wiki article, but the fact that articles exist in FIVE different languages would seem to imply there's some potential notability. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many wiki's also have articles is irrelevant. As for the sources on the Japanese Wiki, did you even check them? They are from the manga itself. Hardly independent sources. --Farix (Talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike most of Jump's recent titles (deservedly being sent to AfD), but like Toriko, this one seems to have some legs. There's even some merchandising out there for it. I'm not up for more extensive Japanese searches, but I'm very leery of saying delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its carried in a very notable and highly influential magazine for this genre, and has an ample number of readers. And when I Google, I get 210,000 hits for "Nurarihyon no Mago". Unless that translates to a common expression, I'll assume everyone is talking about that series. Dream Focus (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you should not that Google Hits are NOT an indication of notability at all. Nor is its appearance in a manga anthology, which the large bulk of all manga do, any indication of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. I'm not finding anything by way of reliable coverage in English aside from the basic publication facts, so by objective measures this seems to fail WP:BK. However, the amount of notice this series gets, in multiple wikipedias and a wide variety of sources, some marginally reliable and a lot non-reliable, convinces me that the series is notable, even if I cannot demonstrate it. So while I can't convince myself to say "keep", I cannot say any form of delete, and there is no possible merge target that I can see. Therefore I recuse myself (at length). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: that's a no vote on the main article. For the list of chapters, it should be merged back into the main article, and cleaned up by templating and adding volume publication information et cet. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter list merge done...who keeps doing these bad splits *head shaking*. If Nurarihyon no Mago is deleted, redirect should also go. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Give it time.andycjp (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The manga is really popular in Shonen Jump. It often gets a spot in the top 10 there. The first volume of the manga was 9th in best sales the month it was released in japan. It is also listed in many english websites like mangaupdates.com or mangahelpers which are some of the most popular one out of the many website related to Nurarihyon No mago. On mangaupdate it is listed as #97 out of (roughly) 38 000 mangas in popularity. In mangahelpers the manga has topics with more than 20 000 views. I believe given it's popularity in the english comunity this manga is more than qualified to remain on wikipedia.User:Skeith (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide actual sources for your claims of being the best seller in its first month of release. Also, we do not look at scanslation sites, period. They are illegal and are not reliable sources. A title appearing there and its so-called popularity is completely irrelevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was 9th place the week of release: [1]. The second volume failed to place, but the third was 5th: [2]. My feelings are much like Quasirandom's; this one is really borderline. It was probably created prematurely, but there are indications the book is on track to being notable in the near future. I'm inclined to Keep and delete later if things fall apart. Doceirias (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BK; is a one-shot manga by an unnotable author. Page consists of fancruft list and would provide no useful information to an average reader. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a one-shot manga. Has three volumes out already, and is ongoing; badly written the page may be, but that is not a reason for deletion. Doceirias (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Doceirias said, it is not a one shot (anymore). It first came out as a one shot, and ended up popular enough to be serialized weekly in Shonen Jump as a full legit manga. There are now 3 volumes out in the market, and 43 chapters released in Shonen jump.Skeith (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I misread the article. Despite that, being serialized doesn't make the subject notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to not being a one-shot but a series, consisting of unuseful cruft is a reason to clean up, not delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When the article is ALL unuseful fancruft, its usually better to delete and try again when and if sources are available. No amount of cleanup will make a topic notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (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.