Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Él (visual novel)


 * 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   no consensus. Variety of opinions, but no rough consensus to delete, and at least one editor is attempting to improve the article further. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Él (visual novel)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested Prod as "not being valid", this article fails per WP:N no references or third party sources to be found. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - There was one review of the anime by a reliable source, (the second link if for a rerelease of the anime, with some parts of the review being new and some being the same as the old review).  I checked for other sources but didn't find any.  However, I've only checked the English language sources that I know of, and don't know if there might be Japanese sources available (such as perhaps magazines that review games like this).  Also, according to the Japanese Wikipedia article, the 2000 game that our article is about is a remake of a 1991 game called ELLE.  If the article is kept, then someone should probably rewrite it to mention the original game, and not just the remake. Calathan (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This runs afoul of WP:POINT and I intend to fix this article as proof that Lucia Black's deletion campaign is disruptive. This has placed an unfair deadline on editors to bring this up to par, but I'll bite because the Japanese Wiki has superior coverage, but has radically different citation standards. This will pass when I am done. This is my start version . I'll update after conducting some work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris, you've added one source, Animetric.com, that has been widely discussed and repeatedly found to not be a reliable source. I've argued in the past that I thought Animetric could be considered a reliable source previously, when companies would send the site owner copies of anime to review and then sometimes quote any positive comments from the reviews on the packaging of anime.  However, the review you cited is from after the domain and old reviews were sold to someone else, who has as far as I know never gotten any attention from any anime company.  The majority of people in past discussions thought the site wasn't reliable even before it was sold, so I can't see any way it could be considered reliable now.  It is really just the opinion of one person on the Internet with nothing to make it at all realiable.  Please as you are attempting to source the article, try to only use sources that are reliable, or at least avoid sources that have specifically been discussed and found to be unreliable (some of which are listed at WP:A&M/RS. Calathan (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reviewer's opinion is acceptable according to WP:RSOPINION, because the source is reliable for the individual's statement. I used it because it balances the positive review and that is also adhering to NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was writing my reply to you on the article talk page at the same time as you were writing this here, so please see my reply there. Calathan (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.    Brainy J  (previously Atlantima) ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 19:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Incubate. Not currently notable, but let's give ChrisGualtieri some time to improve it. 1292simon (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There's apparently an anime based on it, and it has an entry at ja wiki. The coverage in a print source (The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917) suggests it may be notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Anime Encyclopedia covered almost every commercially released anime created up to the time it was written. I don't think it shows notability for most of the works covered, as the authors were not being selective about which works they covered.  For things that they gave longer than normal entries to, I think it could be an indication of notability, but Él didn't get a particularly long entry. Calathan (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While the entry may not be long, the book as noted in this ANN review points out a few titles are missing. The work is indeed informative, but also presents a rather strong bias to adult titles that likely stems from Clements' previous work. I've updated with the Japanese content and got the original 1991 box art on the article now. Just a reminder, I can't translate Japanese yet, I'm at N5 which is useless for this sort of thing. For focus on RSes, I presume they exist, but its been 22 years since it released pre-internet boom on a type of computer which is itself so poorly covered despite its massive critical success over superior products. Eroge games actually cemented the PC-98 series according to quite a few sources, but the content from the era is obscure now and has to be duly researched at libraries and through old magazines. My research allows me to correct and improve content in a variety of areas, fixing old established myths and surpassing the Japanese coverage at times, but this is one case where Japanese sources are absolutely required. At this point, it should not be deleted, the worst possible outcome would be a push into Elf, which is also a poorly represented article. Though I'm certain plenty more exists on this now obscure work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2013 (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.