Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo Innocent

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; without prejudice to recreation if properly sourced. - Philippe 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Innocent[edit]

This manga seems non-notable due to lack of independent coverage. PROD was contested with comment: "There are 3 volumes out. I need to assert why this series is notable" Now being published in 3 volumes is not an assertion of notability, at least not a valid one per WP:BOOK. Article had been tagged with {{notability}} for about one year. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not finding much about this series in English, but as the article notes, it hasn't been licensed, so any sources are likely in Japanese. I note that the Japanese Wikipedia has an extensive article, which strongly suggests notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Extensive" in this case means only a list of characters and a list of chapters, though. —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. That does weaken the suggestion. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An official Square-Enix series would seem to be notable. --Gwern (contribs) 02:31 19 April 2008 (GMT)
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unfortunately this series does not seem to come up on any hits in English. So unless someone who knows Japanese can find good sources and translate than this article will have to go.Divinediscourse (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of WP:V & WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BK as it stands, but I'll defer if sources can be found to meet WP:V and WP:N. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (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.