Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:06, 5 February 2023

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. Comment on discussion: guidelines may be treated with the occasional exception, but they are documents of community norms, and so a good reason needs to be given for deviating from them. Verifiability is required, but not sufficient for inclusion, no matter how many accusations of one -ism or another are thrown around. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Body Transfer

Body Transfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A search for sources for this pornographic anime OVA only turns up one review from a reliable source. This, however, is not enough to meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement of WP:NOTE. --Farix (Talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Farix (Talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep 1) Has been licensed in France. 2) In what way is it not enough? I've seen this argument used before, but I see nothing under WP:GNG that seems to indicate, like, a number. To my reading, what's there IS enough, once you add the mania review. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• How many countries it's been released in is irrelevant to the notability guidelines. Significant coverage is based on the amount and depth of coverage the work has received. Multiple reliable, third-party sources has almost always been a requirement for notability unless a source covers so thoroughly, that additional third-party sources isn't required. --Farix (Talk) 19:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• So, "multiple" implies a number greater than one. If another is found, say, in French...? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends largely on how well the review covers the subject. If it is just a short review, then more will be needed. If it is similar to the Mania review, then its more likely to be counted towards notability. --Farix (Talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, unnotable OVA that fails WP:N and WP:NF. Specifically it is NOT "widely distributed", it has not "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics", it is not "historically notable", it has not "received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking", it has never been "selected for preservation in a national archive" and finally, it is not "'taught' as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Google gave me 17,300 for "肉体転移". Seems like a lot of coverage by some people, which is far more important than the coverage of just a small number of people working for media outlets such as newspapers and magazines. Can someone who speaks Japanese please search for whatever words would be used in referring to the series, along with the name, if its possible some of the hits might be for something else? The ones I clicked on are all for this series though. And I don't care what the notability guidelines/suggestions recommend. You can verify it exist, and it seems to have enough mention to be assumed notable. Dream Focus 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are not a sign of notability, and never will be no matter how many times you try to use this flawed arguement. Find valid evidence of notability within those links. You've been giving a link to a valid review, find another review or such on another good source and you'll have a much easier job keeping the article. We know you don't care what the guidelines are, by saying that you really aren't helping your case. Find proof to support your claims, or don't bother. Existing does not prove anything other then existing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? And I'm not trying to convince the three deletionists who have posted here thus far, since we all know what you will say, just as you are aware of my view on things. We'll just wait for others to join in and state their views on it, and see what the consensus is, be it to follow those guidelines, or simply ignore them, since you can't expect this type of thing to get reviewed in any magazine or newspaper that I'm aware of. Dream Focus 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is the other way around. You have to provide evidence as to why the guidelines shouldn't be followed. Like policy, guidelines are descriptions of standards that have community consensus, the only difference is that they have more exceptions then policy. But just like with policy, if the guidelines are to be ignored, then it must be done in a way that leaves the guidelines intact rather then undermine them. --Farix (Talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be a little out of date here, but doesn't WP:N say something like "an article only needs sufficient evidence that it may be notable?" The whole released in two countries thing and one review already existing points to others existing too. Why must you turn AfD into a hurdle-jumping exercise? It's not like a link to some other dude on a porn review site giving this a thumbs-up will make the article content any more legitimate or actually noteworthy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. After that, there are explanations as to the meaning of certain terms, such as "significant coverage", but there is nothing about "sufficient evidence". In fact, I don't ever remember it saying anything about "sufficient evidence" since it became a guideline. --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep your bad faith accusations of deletionists to yourself, it's pathetic and has no place here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh yeah, that was really uncalled for, needlessly defensive and much more of a "bad faith accusation" than my comment. Getting all mad over something so trivial is really pathetic and has no place anywhere. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that aimed at me? I think the positing of my comment is giving you the wrong impression - not helped by me taking a few minutes to save the page. As for getting mad, you seem to be mistaken. However, this doesn't change the fact that afd is being used to air dirty laundry in public (DF's opinion of editors who have made vastly more constructive contributions then he has). It doesn't belong. Your comment is constructive to the debate, the comment I was replying too wasn't (at least regarding the deletionist issue, the rest well - thats open to interpretation) wasn't. Apologies for any confusion Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that lol. You should probably be more specific in who you're talking to next time. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I should just post quicker, rather then try and watch an episode, write its summary and reply to afd at the same time :P Then there wouldn't have been any confusion as my post would appear in the right place :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You will have to remember that Dream Focus is in this mindset that he must save Misplaced Pages from "THE EVIL DELETIONIST CABAL". --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• "(DF's opinion of editors who have made vastly more constructive contributions then he has)." Wow. You make vastly more constructive contributions by deleting articles? That's not a contribution. You don't help the wikipedia by destroying parts of it. Anyway, back on topic, unless someone can speak Japanese, then finding out information about this, isn't going to be possible. Dream Focus 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll find that between involvement in deletion discussions, the people you accuse of being deletionists have not only contributed greatly project work and wikipedia in general, but have written or greatly contributed to large numbers of GA and FA articles (and I can say that because they frequently appear on pages I watch, performing maintainance tasks and fixing issues with the pages. Never mind all the project pages). AFD is a normal wikipedia practice, don't make it out to be some group of editors who have nothing better to do, especially when most of the votes and large quantitys of nominations come from other people. Don't confuse participation in AFD with destroying wikipedia.

In other news, have you tried using one of the many translation tools available on the web (such as google?). They won't be perfect, but they will give you an idea. I use them all the time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are here now. You are trying to delete an article that couldn't possibly hurt anyone, and which most would never even happen upon unless they were looking up information about it. You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it. And the Japanese sentence structure is so different than that of English speaking people, those translation tools are a chore to use, any site found not coherent enough to figure out what they are saying. Dream Focus 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I? point me to where I said delete. Good luck, I haven't "voted" due to having no opinion either way, so don't give me that rubbish. If you paid attention, you'll notice I've tried to keep several articles recently (a couple of them were heavily leaning towards delete before I stated the case and shockingly enough, actually improved the pages!) and even provided actual page improvements to pages I wasn't fussed about (such as reviews) . Just stick to the deletions, and not passing judgement on peoples motives. You aren't doing yourself any favors when you do and aren't in any position to question peoples motives anyway. AFD is not your soapbox for broadcasting your personal opinions on wikipedia's editors. As for the tools being a chore to use, don't complain when someone offers you a solution to help you achieve something you are moaning you can't do. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources that say anything about it? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If reliable sources don't exist, how would we write about it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless substantial coverage in reliable sources comes to light. Without that, this article fails WP:N and WP:V, since there is no way to write an encyclopaedic article on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The classic teaser article. "Licensed in France" is not substantial coverage. If NOT PLOT prevents anything, it's this. But only Weak delete because a time is needed to permit Japanese-speaking editors to comment. DGG (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete - the sole English review pointed out above actually suggests to me that there may be more coverage in Japanese and (maybe) French. If anyone can produce such reviews, I'll change my !vote, but until then, I'd like to remind several people that licenses in other languages aren't evidence of notability; at most, they are a suggestion that the notability may be there. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Userfy - it's ben shown that the anime was adapted from a video game of the same name, which could potentially demonstrate its notability better than the anime was able to. Potential notability is pretty high here, but it still needs someone willing to take the time and search for the sourced that will allow it to pass at least WP:GNG. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see any reason it should be included really! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Body Transfer is originally a visual novel (a game), that it has got itself an OVA adaptation speaks something about the game's notability. _dk (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that can prove this, then you'll need to prove the game is also notable, then rework the article to focus on the visual novel first, ova second. If a article for the visual novel already exists, this article needs merging into it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Getchu.com has the OVA in its database, and it says the OVA is 原作：シルキーズ　ＰＣゲーム『肉体転移』(Original by: Silky's, PC game "Body Transfer"). The game is notable, as I demonstrated, because it has had an independent adaptation based on it. This is akin to many a rationale saying "the manga has an anime adaptation, it's notable". _dk (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't disagree, but that doesn't fix the issue with the anime article. If the game is notable due to its adaption, then the article needs a overhaul to reflect the game, and have the anime discussed as a secondary work. Currently the article doesn't even mention the game. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an issue that can be dealt with outside the AfD process. _dk (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The game may be notable. Of those 17,300 google hits, it appears that somewhere around 15,000 of them are for the game. I've just taken the time to wade through the first hundred hits of the 2370 for 肉体転移 OVA, and can't find a single reliable source for the video. It certainly exists, people sell it, it's in a whole pile of lists of hentai anime for sale, but no one seems to have said much about it. The game at least appears in detailed write-ups, although the notability conferred by sites like erogamescape.dyndns.org is a bit questionable. The Japanese Misplaced Pages article focuses on the game, but, unfortunately, it's weak on sourcing. Net result: I'm pretty confident the video doesn't warrant an article, but I can't be so sure on the game. It'd take a few hours to wade through the sources on that one and be sure (not surprisingly, I don't read Japanese as rapidly as English or Dutch, and I'm not familiar with what sites generally are considered reliable and independent with respect to hentai anime). We talk sometimes about the cost of verifying some articles not being worth it, and this is a classic example ... it's a piece of hentai, equivalent to "Backdoor Ghetto Girls #963", and I'm not going to spend any more time becoming more certain about it.—Kww(talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The history of the article reveals another review. _dk (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hentai Neko, now Otaku Fringe (http://www.otakufridge.com), is a self-published website with user submitted reviews, so it can't be considered reliable. You can see the discussion here where WP:ANIME evaluated the websites. --Farix (Talk) 10:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - perhaps we can hold open this AfD discussion for another two days to develop consensus? Bearian (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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.