Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 14 April 2009

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". -- Collectonian (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)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates