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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Ragtonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, currently this is an unnotable manga series that hasn't even begun its English release, so no significant coverage in reliable-third party sources, only minor mentions of its pending release. Fails WP:BK. Known creation of confirmed Aurora socks using the site for self-promotion (5 or 6 blocked so far). No prejudice against recreation if it ever actually does receive any reviews or significant coverage after the series begin its English release. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There may be WP:RS for this in Japanese, but that's beyond my ken, and I found no real coverage in English. No sign it meets any other criteria of WP:BK. No prejudice against recreation if, once the English version is out, it gets noted by reviewers and so becomes notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Does that mean the clock reset to run from the 19th? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea...it is showing in the log for the 19th, though, so guessing not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What more central place would be where to ask a question like that? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• maybe Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like as good a place as any. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, it looks like the answer is the clock does indeed reset. So this discussion runs to at least 14:10 on the 24th (longer, if prorogated). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 23 January 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.