Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deus Vitae (2nd nomination)

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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Vitae

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

No evidence of notability (tagged since April 2009). Consists only of plot. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't actually listed at the anime and mange deletion sorting page, but I've listed it now. Calathan (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know if it's enough but was able to find two Anime News Network reviews ([1], [2]), an Animefringe one, and there is a Mania review on "External links" section (all of this sites are WP:A&M/RS). ANN also covered its licensing ([3], [4]). It's only the English-language cover on it... Maybe there's something in Japanese (probably, in fact), and in French since it was released there as fr.wikipedia inform us. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you accidentally linked to one of the Anime News Network reviews when you meant to link to the Animefringe review. I've linked to the review in my comment below. Calathan (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are two mini-reviews from Anime News Network (linked by Gabriel Yuji above), a full review from Animefringe [5], a full review by Mania.com [6], and a short review by Jason Thompson [7] (Jason Thompson is an expert on manga, so the review can be considered reliable per WP:SPS, even though it was posted to a livejournal page). In total, the reviews are sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I think the notability tag has only been on the article for so long because no one has cared enough to edit it, as sources were found during the previous AFD. Calathan (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is more well-known in France because of the Panini Comics release. It is not an English mainstay and Tokyopop has been under for quite awhile. Calathan is correct, many of these books are from a decade ago and few readers remember how difficult it was to even get these releases in that day. Its sorta like SNES releases versus modern indie publishers - its completely different now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. Notable. Cavarrone 23:45, 14 March 2014 (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.