Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bari Haken

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Haken[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) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Unnotable two volume manga with no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's page...oh, there isn't one. The author is notable - he did Mr. Fullswing, which was a successful series. Creation of an author's page seems reasonable, and would allow coverage of his less successful follow up. Doceirias (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An author's article does seem to be in order for the creator Mr. Fullswing as well as some other less notable works, of which this is one. (Claims that because there isn't an article, he must not be notable will be met with derision, given our huge gaping holes in mangaka coverage. Hell, we don't even have stubs for half the Year 24 Group.) Merge to Shinya Suzuki and then convert it to an author's article stub. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any specific reason for all these random manga series nominations? Is their existence destroying the website's servers from the inside out or something that I'm not getting? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment wreaks of bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nice dodge - now what's your answer? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Norse Am Legend : Tell that story to those who decided that every single failed serialization deserved one wikipedia article or the publisher who wanted its catalog on wikipedia regardless rules & guidelines --KrebMarkt 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is featured in Weekly Shōnen Jump. That many readers makes it notable. Having a regular column/series in a major newspaper or magazine, makes something notable. Dream Focus (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain wrong. Being in WSJ, a magazine with some 15+ series does NOT make it notable at all, period. Not a single guideline states this anywhere. Nor can you claim it has "many readers" as you have no idea at all how many people actually read it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being published in WSJ is not in itself a marker of being notable, and arguments that it does has been shown by other AfDs this week to not hold water, at least around here. Ya gotta have something more to show us than that. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should really stop claiming that everything that appears in WSJ is notable, that's just not right. How do you justify this position? I don't see anything that would lead someone to believe this is a valid interpretation of existing policy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:49, 26 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.