Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamisama Kazoku

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The result was Speedy Keep per SK#1, withdrawn by nominator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamisama Kazoku[edit]

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

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

~~Non-notable anime series.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics_and_animation-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:JNN is not a basis for deletion. 12.249.243.118 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Generally we need two or more in-depth reviews to write an article about a TV series but I can't find any for this.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search found at least one detailed review for the manga series, which I've added the the article. Give that there is a wider pool of manga reviewers to pull from than light novels or anime, there is strong chance that more can be found. —Farix (t | c) 16:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Between the (quite reasonable) number of volumes of the light novel and two separate adaptions, as well as the ANN review, this certainly suggests notability. I'd like to see some more reception or general coverage, however it seems reasonable to expect it may exist.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Farix's reference findings. You might want to read WP:BEFORE before nominating things for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1][2][3][4]--M940504 (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nomination withdrawn.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 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.