Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Arts

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. Absolutely no coverage in reliable third party sources has been demonstrated; there's virtually unanimous consensus that the subject of the article is not notable enough for inclusion — this has even been admitted by those who said the article shouldn't be deleted. This point can not be ignored, even though some may find this article interesting, useful, nice or whatever. After all, there's a clear consensus that the article does not meet our guidelines for inclusion — nothing else matters in the end. — Aitias // discussion 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double Arts[edit]

Another non-notable manga series that was serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump for just over 5 months. No reviews or other coverage by third-party reliable source could be found. Author appears to be non-notable with only a series of non-notable one-shots to his credits. Farix (Talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening chapters were cute (and generated an impressive amount of fangirl squee-age) but the series went downhill rapidly -- and it looks like the readers of WSJ agreed. Short-lived, unsuccessful series that, if it got any reliable notice, I can't find it. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has no importance, no one cares, no one's going to look it up. Most of these articles that are getting deleted are based off scanlations. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, short lived series and fails WP:BK having no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Having every failed serialization isn't in the scope of WP:Anime. --KrebMarkt 09:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Simply because I do care, and I did look it up. I was coming to look to read about it and look up new information. Though this is probably irrelevant as I do not know the proper procedure... The page said 'share your thoughts' so I am. -Alex, not registered. (first time doing anything on wikipedia so apologies if I mess something up) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.147.253 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Which goes to show that WP:NOTE does restrict the utility of Wikipedia. Whether this is good or bad, is another issue, but current culture generally believes this is good. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete I also care about this series and loved it from start to finish. While most readers of WSJ didn't enjoy it, I know that I and several of my friends greatly enjoyed the series and do not wish for the Wikipedia article to be deleted. Not only that, but I have had some work put into this article and do not wish to see that go to waste. Caterfree10 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google returns 76,400 for "Double Arts" "manga", and its been published in a popular and very notable manga magazine. Don't care if you think that is notable, I do, and so I vote Keep under the wikipedia rules that the policies are just suggestions, to use common sense, and keep anything that makes the encyclopedia better. Dream Focus (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I looked that up...and...the only thing it came up with is scanlation sites and livejournals. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:18, 3 February 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.