Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scramble-b!

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scramble-b![edit]

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable, unlicensed series. Article can't even give info on serialization, volumes, etc. Unlisted in Anime News Network as well. Fails WP:BK and does not meet the additional criteria allowed at WP:MOS-AM of being "licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan." either. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per ja.wiki (which article's existence suggests that in the country of origin there's some notability) the series was collected in 4 volumes, and followed by a 3-volume sequel which seems to be the story continued. That's not exactly a flash in the pan. Withholding actual !vote to see if I can't find more information supporting notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then other languages. ---Farix (Talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but if said international entry has solid references (I can't tell because of a lack of Japanese language skills) that would be a good reason to keep it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not great referencing. Going by machine translation, the article on the first series has more plot summary than anything, and for the sequel series little more than a stub list of characters. This in addition to basic publication info, that is. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further research discovers that in addition to the 3-volume sequel, there's a second 1-volume sequel plus a 1-volume sidestory -- in total nine volumes of monthly serial numbers (in Ciao), which suggests ... something. Have not yet anything that fits the letter of the law, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's evidence that demonstrates the letter of the law of notability, I'm not finding it. If I were finding hints aside from what I've already cataloged, I might argue for a keep anyway, but the above on its own isn't enough to make me confident the solid evidence exists. A reluctant delete without prejudice for recreation if reliable sources come to light. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 08:43, 8 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.