191:
529:. The problem is that you read "common sense" as "ignore because its only a guideline". At the end of the day one of the main differences between policy and guidelines outside of legal areas is that policy outranks guidelines if the two conflict. In this case it's extremely unlikely that the guideline will be overruled by the policy because the Notability guideline actually supports
547:, instead of keeping up the war against a consensual guideline, provide actual proof this article passes the guideline, or why the guideline should be overruled (with well thought out reasoning, not false claims about the validity of the guideline). If you want to keep articles, giving flimsy claims and ignoring guidelines isn't going to help you.
542:
afd under the guise of common sense when you just happen to dislike guidelines in general. When you start using your own common sense, you can start lecturing others over it. Guidelines should be followed unless you have a good case not to, this isn't one of them. You've no cause to complain about
486:
The guidelines are just a suggestion, as I have pointed out many times before. They were passed by a small number of people, without the consensus or even knowledge of the overwhelming majority of
Knowledge (XXG) editors. Topics with absolutely no proof of notability, do survive quite often.
464:
as you know fully, which requires reliable third party sources, You know this, stop pretending you don't or that it's something you can ignore or twist into the same nonsense as usual. If you don't want to keep having the same conversation, I strongly suggest you try and understand why you keep
431:
Notability is decided on consensus, which is the opinions of whoever is around at the time to comment, and the opinions of whoever closes the AFD. Sometimes articles like this are saved, sometimes not. And I believe I have repeated this time and again also. There no sense in having this same
533:
rather then conflict with it - as notability in third party sources provide verifiable details. If you don't want your votes ignored or dissected, don't insist on ignoring or twisting things to suit your grasping at straws. You are quoting what the page says but not actually reading the
526:
Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes
363:, long enough to be proven notable. You know by now that no matter how notable something is, you aren't likely to find any reviews for this type of thing, since why would any manga related magazine review something carried by their competition?
515:
Thats exactly what I'm talking about, you are completely dismissing guidelines for being "suggestions" and not being consensus when thats the opposite of what they are. For starters the guideline box at the top of the articles states
160:
483:
This page documents an
English Knowledge (XXG) notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may
293:. After I went through the CSE results, I wound up deleting all but 8 hits, which survive only because I'm not comfortable banning their domains. None of them are interesting or significant in any way. --
576:
Despite the claim above, being an individual series published as an individual part of a magazine does not make that series notable, and notability requires discussion in reliable third party sources (
228:
460:
The reason we keep having the same conversation is because you keep starting the same conversation with frivolous reasonings, so don't put the blame on others. Notability is decided by
154:
115:
465:
getting into it. As you've been told dozens of times, being in a notable magazine does not make an individual series notable. The issue here is not what you think it is.
88:
83:
92:
120:
75:
175:
142:
281:
17:
334:
I'm not finding any significant, and precious little insignificant, evidence of notability. Pending reviews in
Japanese or Chinese,
199:
422:
245:
213:
136:
593:
556:
510:
474:
455:
426:
386:
351:
329:
285:
249:
217:
57:
132:
608:
36:
297:
79:
314:
311:
182:
71:
63:
400:
607:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
275:
399:
or published in a magazine does not make a manga notable by any means. The notability of the magazine is
148:
589:
552:
470:
347:
269:
396:
360:
307:
168:
418:
241:
209:
317:. No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Italy & Spain. Licensed by Tong Li Publishing in
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
404:
585:
548:
488:
466:
433:
364:
343:
53:
342:. No prejudice against recreation should it break out as a hit or be adapted as an anime. —
294:
408:
339:
261:
326:
581:
577:
544:
530:
521:
479:
461:
265:
413:
236:
204:
318:
109:
49:
520:, which means that yes, guidelines are still a established consensus. And per
325:
for now as there are not enough evidences to pass any inclusion guidelines. --
195:
543:
any of this as long as you keep up this nonsense. The work doesn't pass
601:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
105:
101:
97:
268:. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. --
167:
229:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
202:
does not have any reliable sources listed either. —
181:
321:. Based on all those available facts i'm leaning
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
611:). No further edits should be made to this page.
395:As has been repeated time and time again, being
8:
487:Policies must be followed, not guidelines.
223:
227:: This debate has been included in the
411:and not on first-party publications. —
403:by the manga. You know full well that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
359:Published in a notable magazine,
198:and forum and blog comments. The
538:, not ignoring the guideline in
518:changes should reflect consensus
432:discussion every single time.
260:Unnotable manga series. Fails
1:
194:turns up nothing put illegal
409:reliable third-party sources
306:a 4-ongoing vols series by
304:Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare
72:Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare
64:Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare
628:
594:05:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
557:11:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
511:06:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
475:05:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
456:00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
427:00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
387:23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
352:14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
330:10:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
286:18:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
250:18:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
218:18:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
58:10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
300:19:10 23 March 2010 (GMT)
604:Please do not modify it.
407:is based on coverage by
32:Please do not modify it.
580:). And currently fails
536:"Occasional exceptions"
361:Princess (magazine)
44:The result was
252:
232:
619:
606:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
437:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
272:
233:
192:Google RS search
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
627:
626:
622:
621:
620:
618:
617:
616:
615:
609:deletion review
602:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
450:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
308:Setsuri TSUZUKI
270:
200:Japanese artice
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
625:
623:
614:
613:
597:
596:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
390:
389:
354:
332:
301:
288:
254:
253:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
624:
612:
610:
605:
599:
598:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
571:
558:
554:
550:
546:
541:
537:
532:
528:
523:
519:
514:
513:
512:
509:
508:
485:
481:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
463:
459:
458:
457:
454:
453:
430:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
410:
406:
402:
401:not inherited
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
385:
384:
362:
358:
355:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
331:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
310:published by
309:
305:
302:
299:
296:
292:
289:
287:
283:
280:
277:
273:
267:
263:
259:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:
201:
197:
193:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
603:
600:
573:
539:
535:
525:
517:
489:
482:
434:
412:
365:
356:
335:
322:
303:
290:
278:
271:Collectonian
257:
235:
224:
203:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
586:Dandy Sephy
549:Dandy Sephy
467:Dandy Sephy
344:Quasirandom
338:as failing
196:scanlations
155:free images
527:precedence
405:notability
397:serialized
298:(contribs)
584:entirely.
327:KrebMarkt
534:meaning.
282:contribs
116:View log
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
574:Delete
484:apply.
336:delete
323:Delete
319:Taiwan
315:Shoten
291:Delete
258:Delete
133:Google
93:delete
50:Stifle
46:delete
540:every
506:Focus
451:Focus
414:Farix
382:Focus
340:WP:BK
312:Akita
295:Gwern
262:WP:BK
237:Farix
205:Farix
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
590:talk
582:WP:V
578:WP:N
553:talk
545:WP:N
531:WP:V
522:WP:G
480:WP:N
471:talk
462:WP:N
357:Keep
348:talk
276:talk
266:WP:N
264:and
234:-- —
225:Note
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
592:)
555:)
524:-
473:)
425:)
421:|
350:)
284:)
248:)
244:|
231:.
216:)
212:|
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
588:(
551:(
503:m
500:a
497:e
494:r
491:D
469:(
448:m
445:a
442:e
439:r
436:D
423:c
419:t
417:(
379:m
376:a
373:e
370:r
367:D
346:(
279:·
274:(
246:c
242:t
240:(
214:c
210:t
208:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
