Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moe Kare!!

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Kare!!

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Plot section (now removed) was WP:COPYVIO from Anime News Network, and character section just translated from JA wiki.[1] Licensed in Chinese and that's it. No significant coverage in that language either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is just a suggested guideline, not a policy. This manga has been published for quite some time in a major magazine, and has been published on its own in 7 volumes. For that reason, I believe the article should be kept. Dream Focus 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article that doesn't meet the notability guidelines is indeed part of the deletion policy. Them From Space 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tag at the top of that page. "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus." Normally, but not always. Use common sense and ignore all rules if necessary. Dream Focus 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is policy, contrary to what you said. And you better have a reason to invoke IAR, as it just isn't used for everyday articles that fail the notability guidelines. That is the accepted consensus. Them From Space 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus, plus, per Collectonian, series has been licensed and translated into Chinese. I can't read Chinese, so I can't look for any sort of Chinese review, but seeing as how its the most-spoken language on the planet, I'm willing to bet there's something out there that would satisfy the (ridiculous) notability guidelines. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Thus far, few series we've seen licensed in Chinese have had any Chinese reviews. No idea if they just don't do them or just not done in reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be a lot of Japanese Ghits for the series [2] and the Japanese Wiki's version of the article mentions a drama CD as well. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't meet WP:BK as GHits are irrelevant (quick scanning, most of those links are either "buy me" links or personal sites) and a drama CD is not a major adaptation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is definitely a long running and apparently popular series, there is a lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. However, I have no prejudice against recreation when such sources are found. --Farix (Talk) 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Yahoo! Japan covering the series here count: http://comics.yahoo.co.jp/shogakukan/ikeyamad01/moekare01/shoshi/shoshi_0002.html ? Also, why not request assistance from native Japanese speakers? Surely they can easily find sources for this series. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, its basically a "directory" type thing, like any bookseller/listing service. It doesn't cover anything just notes it was released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have requested assistance from the WikiProject Japan to ensure presence or lack of a presence of reliable sources written in Japanese. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Asking_for_assistance_to_find_reliable_sources_for_Moe_Kare.21.21 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has even proven it was popular. That's a guess based on how long it ran. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:BK. This hasn't even recieved a trivial mention in the news and it's only mentioned once on the Japanese google news. The Japanese Wikipedia article is uncited. Them From Space 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ~~Themfromspace, have you tried searching Japanese sources? The above query will not produce Japanese sources.~~ I'm aware the Japanese article is uncited, but I'm not sure if the Japanese news search works the same way as the English does. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any third-party references demonstrating notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There appears to be a lot of "fan" and "slash" fiction available about this Manga series, but no news articles. Is that enough to keep? Can anyone find panels about this series at SF/Manga cons, perhaps? Bearian (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC) There is some evidence here, for example, at Comic Con, here. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, none of those support any possibility it was mentioned at a con. Those are all just personal sites/forums where the words appear on the same page. And the amount of copyright violating "fanfic" and scanslation has no bearing on any series notability unless its so great it actually gets mentioned in reliable, third-party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., delete then. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2009 (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.