Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualia the Purple

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qualia the Purple[edit]

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

This article has failed to satisfy WP:BK and the more general WP:GNG by showing any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. All of the sources in the article are either primary or from a retailer, and cursory Google searches don't come up with anything that could prove notability by coverage from reliable sources. 十八 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. 十八 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I also can't find any coverage in reliable sources by its English title or the romanized title. It does have a manga adaptation, so someone with Japanese language knowledge might want to see if there was any coverage of that. Opencooper (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Dengeki Daioh. I see no notability when it comes to this series but it might be worth it to redirect it to Dengeki Daioh as there is a mention there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON It does exist in MADB, but no anime, no RS reviews, only briefly mentioned in a forum thread on Fandom Post. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing currently suggesting the needed independent notability, nothing currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 26 May 2016 (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.