Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na Na Na Na

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Na Na Na Na

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded by IP with not of "item has been licensed", but this does not confer notability. Original prod had reason of "item has been listed as unnotable for almsot a year. It still fails to pass WP:BK. The author himself ilso unnotable and it is unlikely that the series ever will be notable." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have dealt with the link rot on this article. -- allen四names 08:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you added archive links to dead sites which have been removed as not being in keeping with WP:EL which are only for live active official sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely trivial mention by ANN fails WP:NOTE. Only one review found at Mania.com were they panned the first volume so hard that they didn't bother to do a followup review for the second volume. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with TheFarix. After reading the review that TheFarix linked here I no longer see any point in keeping this article. -- allen四names 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in a reception section. Notice the glowing review a reliable source gave it? Googling its name in English or Japanese shows a massive number of results, so surely more references could be found. Dream Focus 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a publisher provided summary from the back of the book. Also Anime News Network's encyclopedia is user edited and is neither reliable or an indicator of notability as it is a directory. And how many times do we have to tell that the number of Google hit is irrelevant? —Farix (t | c) 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod.陣内 _Jinnai 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.