Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meister (manga)

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

No assertion of notability. Google search is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Contested prod. Farix (Talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Weekly Shōnen Jump publishes it, so plenty of people see it. That makes it notable. Dream Focus (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unnotable series that only recently even started running. No significant coverage in reliable sources, unnotable author, and obviously unlicensed and unadapted. Completely fails WP:BK and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the general and specific notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Just started, no real buzz yet, not finding sources to indicate notability = delete —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If you'r going to delete these pages then I suggest you do the same for every single useless page thats been on wikipedia Meister and the other new shonen jump series will eventually get enough to do one volume or enough for you people to actually leave it; as well as the other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.50.3 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Point out that other bad articles exists is not a valid reason to keep a bad article. --Farix (Talk) 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

::*Point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, not policy, so please do not wave it in front of newbies as if it were to cow them. 64.80.89.15 (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Estemi (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

::**But the essay is relevant to notability guidelines and how concensus is determined. Schuym1 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet notable. No prejudice against recreation should it prove successfully, but too soon to tell. Doceirias (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: It's an ongoing series, and it's too early to tell if this article's notable or not. KokoroTechnix (talk) 17:41, 28 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.