Deletion of Petit Apple Pie

Comment: I just found that  actually addresses this point #Non-contemporary books|here. To quote: "From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." So, a super-strict interpretation of the main points in  would seem to out of order in this case as this series is not contemporary and not in English, thereby making sources that much harder to find
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:BK)

Comment: It is indeed not obvious that this series meets any of the criteria in the nutshell version of . But , though no doubt well intended, is rather a mess. Consider for example: ''Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or ''de facto'' national library.'' In Japan, ISBNs were used only very patchily till twenty years or so later, certain publishers (and even certain kinds of books) still avoid ISBNs, and the NDL has not acquired (and still seems uninterested in) great swathes of books that draw critical commentary. Still,  goes some way to redeeming itself with sensible remarks on the "non-contemporary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)