Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osu!! Karate Bu


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Osu!! Karate Bu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested WP: PROD. No rationale was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reasoning from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NBOOK. No supporting references, and no indication of importance (the article even states the subject is "almost completely unknown" outside of Japan). Martin IIIa (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment/Delete - Not that it matters for whether the article should be kept or not, but I think it is a little disingenuous to say that the article has no indication of importance when the first half of the sentence you quote states that it was "widely popular in Japan", a clear claim to importance (also that it ran for a decade and was adapted into a film are both claims to importance). There is no reason to misleadingly quote the article like that when there are plenty of valid reasons for deletion.  Anyway, I'm not finding any in-depth sources in English (just things that show it exists and who the cast was), and it doesn't look like the Japanese Wikipedia page has any sources.  It also looks like a bunch of the article as currently written is original research.  Unless anyone can find sources that support the content in the article, it should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We clearly differ in what constitutes an indication of importance. Something like "had a circulation of over one million" would suggest to me at least the possibility of importance (or certainty, if the claim was well-sourced), but excessively vague claims like "widely popular" usually stem from POV-motivated editing rather than from actual popularity.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Tentative weak keep pending the finding of offline Japanese sources. Right now I can't much coverage in Japanese or English. However, it appears that the manga was adapted into a film, which could just be enough to establish notability. Given the manga's age and longevity, it's quite possible that there could be offline Japanese sources out there that aren't available online. If it turns out that it wasn't covered in reliable sources even then, given that it was published in Weekly Shonen Jump, I would suggest a merge/redirect to a WSJ-related article. Pinging as it appears he has access to some offline Japanese sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I see some news articles that announced a mah-jong related spinoff.  but not much on the original series itself, which ran from 1985 to 1996 so online reviews are highly unlikely unless there are manga reviewers that have recommended it as a classic or something. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete then It's pretty obvious that Osu!! Karate Bu is only "notable" in Japan, so I actually have to "agree" with Martin IIIa, there's no place for these things on English Wikipedia. Luckily it is still available through web archive, so no big deal. I can't see a single advantage in deleting such articles, but that's just me, maybe I am missing something, who knows. It doesn't annoy me the fact that a, b, or c users want to delete x article. What I found "intriguing" is the fact that... apparently these users are pretty random. I checked a little bit Martin IIIa's contributions, sometimes he edits articles (with no decent content) about totally non-notable games/companies however there's no "proposal for deletion". Other times he(?) just adds a bunch of these things in a row. Just because. I guess it's just according to his mood. There are users who have pleasure in creating things (articles in this case) while others have pleasure in "deleting" them. It's part of the human nature. Create vs. Destroy. Martin IIIa must be a specialist in destroying things. --89.180.151.8 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If it helps, the article has had no references since 2008. I'm not seeing much potential to develop an article. But I agree it can be thrown into a wikia or recovered, should such sources warrant bringing it back. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The same article is already over at the Manga wiki . I think  had been importing a lot (maybe all?) of our manga articles to that wiki, so I think most of our manga articles are already on Wikia. Calathan (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (proclaim)  17:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete My search found nothing to show this topic meets WP:GNG. The article has no references and the external links do not lead to any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being made into a film isn't a claim to notability unless the film is notable, and even then we'd have to question whether the subject has independent notability. The series's longevity is a better hint of notability, but it isn't enough for us to make up our own guesses about the subject being notable; we need sourcing to establish it. No one has found any sources for the article in its nearly a decade of existence, and there's no reason to think that they'll find some any time soon. (Side note: in case no one else noticed, 89.180.151.8's vote above is his only WP contribution. Though really, his ludicrous "Martin IIIa both proposes articles for deletion and edits articles without proposing for deletion, therefore all his edits must be random!" WP: Ad hominem argument is reason enough to ignore everything he's said.)--NukeofEarl (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly re: the film. Honestly, it surprised me to hear people claim that as evidence of notability, given how common it is for Japanese IPs to cross between different media forms. We even have an infobox specifically designed around Japanese IPs in multiple media - as seen in the very article under discussion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2017 (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.