Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flock of Angels

: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

speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Flock of Angels]]=

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

Article doesn't assert the topics notability. It has one reference that indicates that the subject exists (but not notability), ~~the external links appear to be links to blog coverage of the subject which may not meet WP:LINKS~~ and don't appear used as references in the article.Kraftlos ''(Talk |

Contrib)'' 11:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:Retracting nomination subject appears to have coverage that I was not aware of. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep all three external links are reliable sources providing full reviews of volumes from the series including two from AnimeOnDVD.com (now Mania.com) and Comics Worth Reading a review site of Johanna Draper Carlson, who is a professional reviewer Publishers Weekly and has been a reviewer of comics and manga for some 15 years. This meets WP:BK for significant coverage and there are likely more.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:23, 17 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.