Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate to Love You

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 merge to Makoto Tateno. MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to Love You[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Extensive searches in English turned up exactly one reliable third-party sources that establish notability; other reliable sources note the series as the first title in the Deux imprint, but these are more about the imprint than the series itself. Basic searches in Japanese turned up pretty much only online sellers. It is believed only reason the article was created was because it was licenced for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Makoto Tateno since he has an article and seems at least marginally notable (though maybe not). One single review isn't enough to make it notable. Mostly just another Aurora promo thing that's been clean up to leave...nothing to talk about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The author does seem to be notable for her shoujo manga, though her article isn't brilliant at asserting it; a merge/redirect would not be out of order. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Collectonian. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we standing with the "multiple licensing" discussion? Because this has been licensed and translated by two different companies in two different languages, which would seem to imply some notability. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it does imply some notability. However, comma, it is not a current criterion of WP:BK and the discussions at WT:BK are not progressing towards a fast adoption of it. As such, given current guidelines, multiple translations only imply and not demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current status is Evidence of notability but not a criteria of notability, final decision is from common good sense. In that case good sense say No. So (number of translated language + good sense) => fail. By the way my opinion is *Merge--KrebMarkt 11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the article was created by an admitted representative of Aurora Publishing as a form of promotion, the review by WP:ANIME has only turned up one review and almost no other third-party coverage by reliable sources. That is not enough to meet the significant coverage test of WP:NOTE. The fact that there is no article on the Japanese Wikipedia should also be taken as an indicator about the work's lack of notability. I hesitate to merge/redirect this article to the author's page, in part because only part of the author's bibliography can be verified and little indication that any of her other works are notable. --Farix (Talk) 12:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't understand Farix's objections; if none of her other works are notable, I don't see how they suggests Hate to Love You should be deleted or kept as a standalone article, and nothing else. --Gwern (contribs) 15:11 30 January 2009 (GMT)

That argument was why I am against merging as an alternative to deletion. --Farix (Talk) 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be numerous search results which look like notable review sites to me. I'll add links to some of them in the article. Dream Focus (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are links to blogs, forums, or other self-published sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous search results, yes, but which don't meet our guidelines for reliable sources. Just because it doesn't call itself a blog doesn't make it not self-published. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 30 January 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.