Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cage of Eden

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 April 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 August 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 September 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cage of Eden

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

A search for reliable third-party sources only comes up with websites distributing illegal scanlations. Beyond the plot descriptions, the article fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, and WP:BK. The magazine or publisher of the series does not contribute anything towards the notability of the work. Nor does the author of the work appear to have any notability either. While the series does seem popular in scanlations, popularity is not the same as notability. —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail both GNG & WP:BK. No evidence of notability found only link to illegal scanlation websites, blogs & direct download. No licensor in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German. No ANN users editable encyclopedia entry. --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

これは日本の漫画作品の記事なので、"Cage of Eden"ではなく、「エデンの檻」で検索してください(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)。--119.243.222.194 (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Translates kinda funny. But you know those crazy Japanese. Always writing articles without signifying their encyclopediatic value. This is a classic case.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25E3%2582%25A8%25E3%2583%2587%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2581%25AE%25E6%25AA%25BB Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 01:22, 17 July 2010 (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.