Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecha Musume


 * 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   redirect to Moe anthropomorphism. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mecha Musume

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an apparently non-notable subset of moe anthropomorphism. I don't see anything in the current article that could be merged to the mecha musume section in that article. Please note that the most substantial potential citation, to the boing-boing site, uses wikipedia as a source and is therefore unusable. Malkinann (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I must comment that this is a Japanese term and thus, to be fair, a search on reliable source(s) should be also conducted in Japanese, also, this term in Japanese actually appears quite often in Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan magazines. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This is a common subset of Japanese moe anthropomorphism. Might not be notable in Western nations, but I wouldn't call it non-notable.  The article does need a lot of work though.  --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * * Merge On second thought, upon looking more closely at the article, most of the information there seems biased. Most of it should be trimmed, and the section in moe anthropomorphism expanded with anything salvageable.  --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect Without sources, the content of the article is not salvageable for a merge. However, it would be a useful redirect for Moe anthropomorphism and redirects are cheap. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. 'Mecha musume' is a legitimate term, although a fairly narrow one. Going through my CSE, I find a number of uses of the term, both with and without definition (pointing to an expectation by the author that the term would be understood by readers): Japanator 2 3, THEM, ANN 2, Destructoid, and is defined in the Geektionary. If there were more than brief discussions and usage of the term, I'd go for a keep, but as it stands... I suspect one could write at least 2 articles on 'mecha musume', 1 article on the general moe anthropomorphism and its use in works like Strike Witches and a 2nd article on the company which manufactures mecha musume figures which is apparently named 'Mecha Musume' - but Japanese business sources are hard to come by in English. Hopefully there will be sources enough eventually to support a standalone article, in the meantime, not losing the existing content is important. --Gwern (contribs) 23:21 24 April 2011 (GMT)


 * I have come across a few myself within the last ten minutes, I find your argument hard to fathom, Gwern. - Jake Talley (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Come across what? Where? How does it apply to my comment which contains multiple points?
 * For that matter, why are you going through my edits and reverting reference additions? Or are you going to claim that it's sheer coincidence that you have reverted or commented on my stuff on 7 different articles while also violating PROD policy and lying in marking edits as minor? --Gwern (contribs) 19:11 29 April 2011 (GMT)


 * Strange, earlier I could've swore I saw text stating how hard it was to find Japanese manga for the particular thingamagig. In any case, 7 articles? Are you sure? I've just been going round doing my usual daily business on here, not my fault if you follow me. PROD? That sounds awful kinky Gwern, but no thankyou. In all seriousness, I can't really see why you'd accuse me of lying but hey, the world we live in eh? Jake Talley (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, User:Jake Talley is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Gnome de plume (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (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.