349:
don't think these sales figures are deceptive (Japan isn't a tiny country, and the publisher would have to be very stupid to ship vastly too many copies by the third volume of the series). I also find it odd a comparable ranking from the same sorce (Oricon, which ANN is citing) would be considered as evidence of notibility for a song but not for a manga.
310:. However, the amount of notice this series gets, in multiple wikipedias and a wide variety of sources, some marginally reliable and a lot non-reliable, convinces me that the series is in fact notable, even if I cannot demonstrate it, and while I can't convince myself to say "keep", I cannot say any form of delete. —
348:
to add sales figures as a criteria, the reasons against doing so seemed to be that people could site deceptive statistics (e.g. high placing in a sales chart in a tiny country, or sales figures inflated by the publisher), and not that high sales or a high sales ranking didn't indicate notability. I
504:
Assume good faith. I had the same viewpoint before trying to change the guidelines into something more reasonable. And stay focused on the topic please. If most people believe that it is common sense to have an article, for any established series in one of the most popular manga magazines in the
438:
Rejected by the small number of people who posted there, stating that it should be a certain way. I can't really take a guideline serious, that 99.9% of wikipedia users never had any say in. People should just think for themselves, and make a decision based on common sense. If it is obvious
479:
is that it should never undermine existing polices and guidelines. It should only be invoiced when following them doesn't make any sense or is clearly harmful to
Knowledge's purpose, building an encyclopedia. You consent invoking of WP:IAR in every AFD clearly demonstrates that you have no
366:
Featured in Weekly Shōnen Jump, a very popular manga magazine. Has several volumes published already, and appears to be selling quite well. Remember, the guidelines are not policy, just suggestions of what works sometimes. It says on the notability page, that sometimes you should
541:. To create a consensus, editors need to participate in the discussions. It is bad faith to marginalize those who choose to participate in the discussions process by always dismissing the policies and guidelines outright because you didn't like them and couldn't change consensus. --
505:
world, then the article will be preserved, is sometimes happens. If they prefer to follow the guideline, which is not absolute law, then they'll delete it, do to the fact that this type of media almost never gets any third party reviews.
48:
the article. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No clear indication to me that sales figures are for this manga on its own as opposed to its parent. Article is still lacking independant, third party sources that set out how it could pass
95:
90:
471:
In short, you couldn't "win", so you are going to pretend it didn't matter. Knowledge's policies and guidelines have weight, and they can't be dismissed because you don't like them. You argued for a
175:
listing. Beyond being able to verify it exists, there is nothing about it. Last AfD closed as no-consensus. Two months allowed for additional notability, and no changes to the article at all.--
203:
344:
Personally, I think a book that sells 100,000 copies in a single week (from one of the links posted by
NocturneNoir) is notable. While I know that there wasn't consensus on
85:
156:
235:. Amazon.co.jp can provide verifiability, as Collectonian notes. It doesn't have an official ANN page but does have listings in comic rankings as
410:
Apparently, you think that
Knowledge's policies and guidelines never work because you always suggest we ignore them at AFD. Being serialized in
123:
118:
306:, same as before. I found no reliable coverage in English aside from the basic publication facts, so by objective measures this seems to fail
127:
439:
something has a large number of readers, don't their opinions make it more notable, than just a review from a single newspaper reviewer?
592:
110:
598:
552:
528:
495:
462:
429:
398:
358:
336:
319:
296:
263:
225:
192:
68:
221:
188:
17:
236:
240:
576:
as we can't find independant, third-party sources that mention it nontrivally and discuss its relationship with the
368:
285:
has rejected the addition of sales figures/rankings as a benchmark for inclusion since the original nomination. --
613:
414:
means nothing. Popularity =/= notability. Nor do sells figures or rankings, which were recently been rejected at
36:
612:
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
587:
215:
182:
114:
372:
315:
209:
176:
171:. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no reviews, doesn't even appear to have an
332:
582:
548:
491:
425:
354:
292:
172:
106:
74:
251:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
506:
440:
376:
311:
59:
328:
481:
543:
538:
486:
476:
472:
420:
350:
287:
573:
415:
345:
307:
282:
278:
244:
168:
144:
274:
164:
54:
50:
580:. Sales figures mean nothing as notability isn't the same as popularity.
475:, it didn't occur. That's how Knowledge works. But also, one aspect of
537:
But still rejected. Knowledge's polices and guidelines are built on
606:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
96:
Articles for deletion/Nurarihyon no Mago (3rd nomination)
91:
Articles for deletion/Nurarihyon no Mago (2nd nomination)
151:
140:
136:
132:
273:
per my original nomination. The subject still fails
204:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
616:). No further edits should be made to this page.
249:Disclaimer: I read this series too at one point.
247:found is from an unreliable, fan-based source.
8:
572:mostly per Farix above. This doesn't meet
198:
163:Unnotable manga series. Completely fails
202:: This debate has been included in the
86:Articles for deletion/Nurarihyon no Mago
83:
7:
81:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
53:, even after the first AfD. --
1:
482:understanding of the policy
633:
599:16:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
553:04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
529:03:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
496:03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
463:02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
430:02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
399:13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
359:02:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
337:09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
320:14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
297:14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
264:13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
226:12:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
193:12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
69:10:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
609:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
80:AfDs for this article:
44:The result was to
327:: trivial coverage.
473:change of consensus
369:WP:Ignore all rules
412:Weekly Shōnen Jump
173:Anime News Network
107:Nurarihyon no Mago
75:Nurarihyon no Mago
260:
256:
207:
624:
611:
595:
590:
585:
525:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
459:
456:
453:
450:
447:
444:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
261:
258:
254:
212:
179:
154:
148:
130:
66:
57:
34:
632:
631:
627:
626:
625:
623:
622:
621:
620:
614:deletion review
607:
593:
588:
583:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
442:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
373:wp:Common sense
252:
210:
177:
150:
121:
105:
102:
100:
78:
60:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
630:
628:
619:
618:
602:
601:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
532:
531:
499:
498:
466:
465:
433:
432:
402:
401:
361:
339:
322:
300:
299:
267:
266:
229:
228:
161:
160:
101:
99:
98:
93:
88:
82:
79:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
629:
617:
615:
610:
604:
603:
600:
597:
596:
591:
586:
579:
575:
571:
568:
567:
554:
550:
546:
545:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
530:
527:
526:
503:
502:
501:
500:
497:
493:
489:
488:
483:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
467:
464:
461:
460:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
423:
422:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
397:
396:
374:
370:
365:
362:
360:
356:
352:
347:
343:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
298:
294:
290:
289:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
265:
262:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
205:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
174:
170:
166:
158:
153:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
65:
64:
58:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
608:
605:
581:
577:
569:
542:
507:
485:
441:
419:
411:
407:
377:
363:
341:
324:
303:
286:
270:
248:
232:
218:
211:Collectonian
199:
185:
178:Collectonian
162:
62:
61:
45:
43:
31:
28:
312:Quasirandom
578:real world
329:JamesBurns
539:consensus
375:instead.
371:and use
351:Calathan
245:A review
222:contribs
189:contribs
157:View log
408:Comment
304:No vote
255:OCTURNE
233:Comment
124:protect
119:history
570:Delete
477:WP:IAR
325:Delete
281:, and
271:Delete
208:-- --
152:delete
128:delete
46:delete
594:Space
574:WP:BK
544:Farix
524:Focus
487:Farix
458:Focus
421:Farix
416:WP:BK
394:Focus
346:WP:BK
308:WP:BK
288:Farix
283:WP:BK
279:WP:BK
241:ninth
237:fifth
169:WP:BK
155:) – (
145:views
137:watch
133:links
16:<
589:From
584:Them
549:Talk
492:Talk
484:. --
426:Talk
418:. --
364:Keep
355:talk
342:Keep
333:talk
316:talk
293:Talk
277:and
275:WP:N
239:and
216:talk
200:Note
183:talk
167:and
165:WP:N
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
51:WP:N
259:OIR
56:Ged
551:)
494:)
428:)
357:)
335:)
318:)
295:)
243:.
224:)
206:.
191:)
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
63:UK
547:(
521:m
518:a
515:e
512:r
509:D
490:(
455:m
452:a
449:e
446:r
443:D
424:(
391:m
388:a
385:e
382:r
379:D
353:(
331:(
314:(
291:(
257:ɳ
253:ɳ
219:·
214:(
186:·
181:(
159:)
149:(
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.