Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meganekko

: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 keep/no consensus by {{admin|Lifebaka}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meganekko&diff=238504959&oldid=238379948][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meganekko&diff=prev&oldid=238505030]. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Meganekko]]=

Uncited since March 2007, and by looking at the talk page it's clear that nothing has happened that might improve the situation since. As it stands, I can't even verify the article's title is correct (I get more hits when searching for an alternative spelling), let alone the content, which is completely uncited. Shinobu (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Lack of citation is not ground for deletion, subject doesn't seem to be that obscure: article exists in several languages, and a google search returns plenty of results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Meganekko&start=70&sa=N]. Equendil Talk 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Life support keep the extraordinarily long of every girl who ever wore glasses in a manga/anime ever needs to be killed with fire, but the basic concept of that article is a noteworthy one I believe. JuJube (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up that dementedly long list (I'd suggest trimming it down to a handful of sourced few and converting it into prose), and get better sourcing. Seeing the term mentioned by mangaka and anime directors several times over the years (including in comments along the lines of "he/she wears glasses because I needed a meganekko character") is enough to convince me that this is a recognized and recognizable character type. I'm not familiar enough with academic literature on manga/anime, though, to provide better sources myself. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Question for nominator: what alternate spelling did you use? "Meganeko" will get a lot of false positives, as that's also a common spelling for "mega-neko" i.e. big cat, like the catbus from My Neighbor Totoro. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Japanese spelling without the little tsu. Shinobu (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Sorry, but this is still yet to be sourced, has not been sourced since sources were requested back in March 2007 (whats that, one and a half years ago?) and doesn't look like it will be sourced, either. RFerreira (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Anime and manga terminology. The reason it's low-content and unsourced is because it's essentially a dictionary entry. It's very difficult to make a good, well-sourced article out of "the Japanese word for 'glasses girl'", and it really hasn't taken on any specific meaning beyond that which would give people something to write an article about, even in anime fandom, which is why the definition in the article is so vague. Gelmax (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • But then you'd still need to properly source the term. Can this be done? Shinobu (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources are found in Japanese and English Wikipedia doesn't need all sources in English. And meganekko characters are presented in each anime/manga series (with those sources). This correct title is meganekko (see the talk page). Zero Kitsune (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If it is so easy to find sources, source the article. For the double k thing, see above. Shinobu (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because it's unsourced doesn't mean it's not worthy of being an article. I agree with those above that it's very difficult to find good sources for pop-culture words, especially when it's in another language. The bottom of the page could really use some clean up though, perhaps a shortened version consisting of a handful of notable Meganekkos would suffice. Either that, or create a separate page for the list, though with the main page under debate for deletion I can't see much of an argument to make separate page with a list of them. —FantajiFan (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • @"Just because it's unsourced doesn't mean it's not worthy of being an article.": Please read WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The authors of the article have been given ample time to source it, but no sources have been added. Shinobu (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm new to nominating articles for deleting. Do I have to {{subst:adw|Meganekko}} ~~~~ all authors manually, or just the first, or can this be botted or otherwise made easier in some fashion? Shinobu (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Technically, the creator only, but it's considered good form to also notify editors who have done significant work on it since. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. Ignoring minor changes and those by the original author most content appears to be written, as determined by quickly clicking through the edit history of the article, by Animedude360 and Sana Jisushi. I will notify them now. Shinobu (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs sources, but I'm sure they can be found through searches of Japanese cultural magazines and anime publications. The topic itself is notable. Buspar (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "I'm sure they can be found" means the same as "I haven't found any yet". Notability isn't the only criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, verifiability is even more important. Shinobu (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep WP:V says "should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". It does not say that entire articles which have insufficient inline citations must be deleted." In this article, what information is likely to be challenged? Any? If not, then throw away all of the above arguments about verifiability. Now back to notability. If sources exist in another language to show that there has been significant non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, then the subject is presumed to be notable. IF we don't have an English translation of the sources available, then we have to assume they are valid until proven otherwise.Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:25, 15 September 2008 (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.