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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Kare!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Search for reliable sources could only fine one review at animepro.de, most of which is a plot summary.[1] This does not meet the inclusion requirements "significant coverage" by reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:NOTE nor is there any evidence that the manga meets any of the other inclusion criteria of WP:BK. The article has been previously deleted after an AfD for almost the exact same reasons and there is no indication the situation has changed since its previous deletion discussion. —Farix (t | c) 14:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately, this manga is not the subject of enough reliable coverage. No reviews were found. If this version is substantially the same as the previous one, then it can be speedied as G4. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Delete. I do however find a notable source [2] but it was not referenced. The creator of the article had been inactive on Wikipedia for over a year and this article has been abandoned. This article has been standing for a year, so why not help work on the Article or leave it as a stub for now rather than delete it?--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network's encyclopedia is not a reliable source because its content is user generated without any editorial oversight and it is a directory listing nearly all anime or manga series or film. Moreover, even if ANN's encyclopedia was a reliable source, WP:NOTE specifically excludes such directories and databases when determining notability. The reason the article hasn't been improved is because there are no reliable sources to use to improve it. —Farix (t | c) 02:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of coverage (reviews, interviews etc.). Ryoga Godai (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails per WP:N per above, when there are no reliable sources we cant make anything out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2012 (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.