Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be Honest!

: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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Be Honest!]]=

:{{la|Be Honest!}} ([{{fullurl:Be Honest!|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be Honest!}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BK, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources beyond one or two publication announcements. As the English release won't even be published until September 2009, its highly unlikely any notability will be established before then. This is one of many bad stub creations of confirmed Aurora socks using the site for self-promotion (5 or 6 blocked so far), including their having copy/pasted their promo materials into the articles. No prejudice against recreation after its published and if it receives actual coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. While it may be possible there are WP:RS for this in Japanese, I came up with absolutely bupkis in English, and no sign it meets any other criteria of WP:BK. No prejudice against recreation if, once the English edition is out, reviews take note. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Failed every criterion even the debated 6th, may come again if reliable sources & references untarnished by the publisher propaganda marketing are provided. --KrebMarkt 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.