Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yandere Kanojo

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. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines and should be deleted. I can userfy if either the creator or any other editor would like to work on establishing notability in user space. —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yandere Kanojo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reliable sources comes up with nothing but forum posts and illegal scanlation websites. Does not appear to be licensed outside of Japan. Fails the inclusion criteria for stand-alone articles, especially the specific inclusion criteria for books. Deprodded without any comments by an IP with a known history of disruptive deprodding everything he/she comes across. —Farix (t | c) 11:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gangan Comics I see no harm in a redirect as it is a possible search term other than that I agree that this article should be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any particular reason for an article with this much content to be deleted. SifaV6 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about the fact that the subject lacks any coverage by reliable third-party publications, which is a requirement for all subjects on Wikipedia? —Farix (t | c) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the lack of secondary sources, you should put up a notability tag, not a deletion tag. You're going way overboard here. SifaV6 (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How am I going overboard here? I did a search for significant coverage by reliable third-party sources and didn't come up with anything. There was no reason to believe that such coverage would exist. I don't see how an article's length is has any barring on the subject's inclusion or as a legitimate reason to keep an article. —Farix (t | c) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of third-party sources out there on this manga such as Anime News Network and such. Maybe instead of spending your time on trying to get articles deleted, you should use them to improve the articles. SifaV6 (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only coverage by ANN is a list the manga that will appear in the premier issue of Gangan Joker manga magazine. It is not the significant coverage required by WP:NOTE or WP:BK. "Significant coverage" means that third-party sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I looked for third-party source and couldn't find any significant coverage. You claim there is. It is up to you now to prove there is significant coverage. —Farix (t | c) 11:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Link ANN] - Listed the title of the manga, author of the manga, the name of the magazine it appears in, its genre, the official website for the manga and aslo its publisher. [Link ANN] - This listed the number of volumes the manga has and also its release date. What more do you need? SifaV6 (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational explains why ANN's encyclopedia is an unreliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N by lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The length of the article in no way justifies keeping it. Edison (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison, no sources found. Search for Japanese name was also fruitless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SifaV6.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SifaV6 didn't present an argument backed up by any guidelines or policies. His argument was a combination of WP:TOOBIG, WP:ILIKEIT, and mild personal attacks against me for nominating the article for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete, looks like it fails notability guidelines now, but who knows, it may get licensed and translated eventually. It'd be a shame to have to start the article from scratch if that happens. Let SifaV6 keep it in his userspace until then. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (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.