- 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 speedy delete. Blanked by creator (G7). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nightmare phase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails to meet notability guideline. This would need sources and information from neutral sources, instead of just the author, who appears to be the sole contributor. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I haven't checked GOOG but certainly this would not be difficult to recreate if deleted but justfiable for inclusion later. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Parkerparked (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article revision alone justify the deletion. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting homemade manga. The article creator is the same one of that manga plus its sole contributions are on this article Special:Contributions/ShadowLovely. Clear case of self promotion. --KrebMarkt 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFT. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Filtering to just applicable uses of the title isn't the easiest process in the world, but this self-published work does not seem to have received any attention at all, let alone from the reliable sources Wikipedia guidelines require. Fails WP:BK = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT, also fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Junius49 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BK would be the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, both because it's a book and because it's an actual guideline instead of (again) a proposal. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't EVEN a book. See http://www.nightmarephase.blogspot.com/. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BK would be the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, both because it's a book and because it's an actual guideline instead of (again) a proposal. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Was not trying to self promote manga. This page was requested by several readers. Did not mean to violate any guidelines and would love to know how to fix.--ShadowLovely 9:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1) You can start by striking the "keep" vote. 2) Acquaint yourself with WP:COI as well as the aforementioned WP:NFT. 3) And you can stop calling it "manga," it isn't no matter how hard you call it that. At BEST it would be OEL manga, though I object to the very existence of that term (if it isn't Japanese, its a comic). 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To have the article kept, you need to show that the work meets one of the inclusion guidelines for books, which in this case almost certainly means the first one: that multiple third-party (people who are not connected with the publication and so have no stake in promoting it) reliable sources have talked about the work, be it in published reviews or scholarly analysis. Since these disucssions last five days, you have a couple more; if you can't complete that in the time limit, you can always request that the closing administrator copy the article to your userspace before it's deleted. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience my article caused. I use the term manga because not many people are educated to the proper terms about comics, manga, and other literature. If it's this big of a deal, I will remove the page, no harm done to me. Like I stated previously, this wasn't to promote anything, simply requested by some readers. ShadowLovely (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia is not a webhost. I also recommend deleting the article creator's userpage because Wikipedia is not a repository of links. --Farix (Talk) 03:38, 9 July 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.