Talk:Nura: Rise of the Yokai Clan

Notability
So far, the third party coverage is still trivial. Unless substantial coverage, such as a couple of reviews, is presented, then this will be nominated for deletion again. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If enough editors are active this time to notice, then consensus will probably be for keep, or at least a no consensus which is the same is keep. With sales figures like that, I don't know how any reasonable person wouldn't see it is clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  01:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sales figures doesn't really matter where notability is concerned. Without substantial coverage by third party sources, all this article will ever be is an elaborate plot summary. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sales figures ALWAYS matter for common sense reasons. Ignore your suggested guidelines, they not binding in anyway.  And the article was kept this time around, enough reasonable people showing up to protest any mindless destruction of it.   D r e a m Focus  13:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was not kept, as per se, the discussion was simply closed as no consensus, which defaults to keep. I would like to point out that this default is recommended by the same guidelines that you so desperately want to ignore. In addition, you still have to answer the open call for reliable sources demonstrating the series' sales figures. Circulation numbers for the magazine issues is only applicable to the magazine's article; it's impossible to prove (and ridiculous to assume) that everyone (or even most people) who buys an issue buys it to read this series. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was voted by the readers of that magazine to be the most popular feature in it, so yes, most who read the magazine did read it, and loved it. Also, there are references in the article that most of the collected volumes sold over a hundred thousand copies each.  It is clearly notable.  And the AFD I believe is a POLICY, not a GUIDELINE.  You can ignore the suggested guidelines, they only suggestions, not laws like the policies are.   D r e a m Focus  19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are basing your poll argument on several assumptions: that the vast majority of WSJ readers actually voted in the poll (very unlikely) and that a majority of the votes were for this series (also rather unlikely; it's more likely that the votes would have been spread such that this series had the most votes, but not a majority of them - there is a very real difference). In addition, this is simply a publisher-run popularity contest - you have yet to show why it should count towards the series' notability (to do so requires multiple reliable, independent sources focusing on the award). Also, why should the cutoff be at 100,000 volumes before sales figures convey notability? Why not lower, or higher? It's a completely arbitrary figure that can be changed at your convenience (reach consensus on the subject, though, and it'll be a completely arbitrary figure with consensus). As for AFD procedures, they are not even guidelines, but merely "best practices", and you can ignore established policies as well, technically speaking. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense. It sold very well, so its notable.  Simple as that.  I agree we need a lower level for any volume, as well as a total number for all the volumes perhaps.  But no matter what level we agree upon, obviously having over a hundred thousand sales for every volume released, other than the first two, is rather impressive.  In 2007, the year it got the award, Weekly Shonen Jump had 2,700,000 readers.  Even if you just had a verifiable 10% of those reading you, that'd still make you notable, since it'd be a heck of a lot of people.  Verifiable large numbers do read it.  That's all that matters.   D r e a m Focus  23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not all that matters. Give me a source explicitly stating that 10% of WSJ's readership reads this series. Also, if it really is so popular, there should be coverage of the series, most likely in Japanese. Either find these sources yourself, or find someone who speaks Japanese and is willing to look for you. This is the only way you are going to settle the notability issue with this series. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need a source unless you have any realistic doubts. And the issue has already been solved.  Most people would agree, its clearly notable, and don't need any sources telling them what is obvious.   D r e a m Focus  22:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. While it may be true that the series is notable, it is not verifiable without sources. Saying that we "don't need a source" goes explicitly against several policies and guidelines. The series' notability has not yet been clearly established (the issue has not already been solved), so the notability tag cannot yet be removed. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the proper name for the award?
In 2007, it ranked number one in the Future Gold Cup. That's what Google translate calls the Gorudofyuchakappu. I Google for "Future Gold Cup" and find nothing. Where on the official site of that magazine would the award be listed at in English? They have an English version of their site.  D r e a m Focus  15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gold Future Cup.—Tokek (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Move or copy proposal
There may be interest in moving or copying this article to a more forgiving site (example), seeing that this article has been already nominated three times before. There should be a site that can simply say "if it's a broadcasted anime or published manga, then let's include it."—Tokek (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who don't like it, failed to delete it three times already. It should be safe, for awhile anyway.  Never flee from injustice, intolerance, or insanity.  Reason must prevail.   D r e a m Focus  21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)