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]

Mink (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only one extremely brief review on Manga-News which may not even be a review[1] Prod removed by IP with not of "has been licensed", however being licensed does not give instant notability to any manga series. Despite its being licensed and fully released in English and French, again no significant coverage has been found, just the single 2-3 sentence "review" already noted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:09, 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]
• Delete This is an old manga series so I understand why alot wouldnt be online about it and as much as the Otaku in me wants to keep the article it does not meet notability (If it has been around this long and people forgot it that fast it isnt notable in my point of view). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would prefer to keep this article but I have to agree with the nominator about it's notability. -- allen四names 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in French or so, i checked 5 French RS websites. The manga-news review is an user submitted one not a staff one, to answer Collectonian. English coverage isn't better i found nothing RS. --KrebMarkt 07:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lack of obvious online review sources in English is not a valid reason to delete. The massive number of hits Google gets, prove it is at least well known. Anime News Network list it. Dream Focus 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Anime News Network's Encyclopedia is a user edited directory. So it 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) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing you can use google for is first making sure none of the links are wikipedia related links, then use what you can find as possible references. Total amount of hits mean nothing because some of them could reference wikipedia, while others are possible fansites. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 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.