My apologizes but if possible, i would like the "Cage of Eden" article that i made recently and was later deleted to be restored. Unlike before which the Cage of Eden article was deleted due to the lack trusted sources, the new version that i made has including references and the fact it has been licensed for North America by Kodansha Comics USA. I hope for a quick reply soon. Thank you. --FonFon Alseif (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us a draft in userspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The version in the cache appears to be sourced to a press release. Although I really don't think there's any harm in Wikipedia hosting an article on this manga series, I also think that we ought to apply the same rules to everyone, and that means you would need an independent source.—S MarshallT/C 11:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the first of thsoe as the person you say is licensing would seem to fail to be independant. The second doesn't look like a particularly reliable source and the third doesn't supply any depth it's merely a listing of the existance, click through from that and you or on user submitted content (it says in the banner at the bottom it's from user contributions) which would again fail to be a reliable source --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anime News Network's news stories are a reliable and independent source, but their coverage of the title is very trivial so far, and isn't nearly enough to establish notability. Once the first volume is actually released in the U.S., it will probably be reviewed by the reliable sources that regularly review manga released in the U.S. (such as Anime New Network and Mania.com). Having at least a couple reviews from reliable sources would allow the series to pass the notability guidelines for books (WP:BK criteria 1). So I would recommend waiting until the first volume is released in the U.S. (currently scheduled for August) and then looking for reviews, and requesting the article be undeleted again then (or just recreating it) once the reviews appear. Calathan (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to be clear the comments regarding Anime New Network was that the current coverage is trivial, the more substantial coverage their at the moment is use submitted. Should the non-user submitted content expand I've no reason to believe it wouldn't be reliable and useful. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
