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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A New Breed Of Darkness

[edit]

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

Basically a web-based dojinshi with no sources that are not independent. Can't find any independent RS in English, and absolutely no references to the supposed original Japanese company in Japanese. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless reliable sources are added, then please ping me so I can re-review this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Not enough reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. The article is self-promotional rubbish for a clearly non-notable company. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Bueller 007 and others previous to my vote. Jun Kayama 02:45, 16 June 2013 (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.