Deletion of Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō

Comment: with no prejudices of recreation if reliable sources are found. Currently, the article is nothing more than plot information, which can easily be recreated. Instead, we strive to have articles that cover how the work came to being, its reception, and its influences on other works. Sales figures are not part of  because of the way that sales figures can be manipulated by publishers. But also popularity is not the same as notability. And while the total volume numbers is a good indication that reliable sources ''may'' exists, it does not, in itself, demonstrate notability. |Notability requires verifiable evidence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:NRVE)

Comment: Its length does not make it notable, and we cannot operate on the idea that because we believe it should have coverage that it does. The lack of actually verified significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and the lack of reviews or any other coverage of its adaptation makes it fail  and . Therefore, it should not have an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:N)

Comment: A long running manga series that has spun sequels, had a movie (Which likely fulfills criteria #3 of , two artbooks, one guidebook, as well as having recently had a "Complete" edition released seems to me to be notable enough that it deserves an article. I'll check through some old Animage issues and see if there is any coverage of the movie that could be added to the article. While the current quality of the article is lacking, that doesn't mean that there is nothing useful there for someone who wants to expand and improve the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: There is no applicable notability guideline for sales figures, and in any case there are no reliable sources for |verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: This is a good example of why I think  just doesn't work for manga, and an example of where the instruction in  to use common sense should be followed.  No matter how notable a manga actually is, if it has only been published in Japan, and especially if it is more than a couple years old, no one on the English language Wikipedia can ever find sources for it.  According to Square-Enix's web site, this manga has sold over 15 million volumes http://www.square-enix.com/eng/group/publishing.html, and the fact that they mention it there suggests that it is one of the most successful manga series they have ever published.  I also want to mention that if  corresponded to , this would pass the notability guidelines easily (based on sales numbers), and it would also semi-pass F as a major work by a notable creator (Chiaki Kawamata).  While  doesn't allow for similar considerations, I think that is based on an assumption that notable works will have readily accessable reviews, which just doesn't hold for Japanese works, and manga in particular
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:N||WP:BK||WP:MUSIC||WP:NF||WP:BK)