Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otometeki Koi Kakumei Love Revo!!


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Otometeki Koi Kakumei Love Revo!!

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No context, reads like a copyvio. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep? A dating sim where you're a fat girl trying to lose weight so boys will notice you? That has to be the most depressing premise for a game I've ever heard of. It does appear to actually exist, doesn't appear to be copyvio, and the level of spin-off merchandising, the manga, and the DS port suggest that it's at least notable in Japan, though finding English sources is probably going to be difficult. I'm somewhat inclined towards keeping it. --erachima talk 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears to have been ported to multiple platforms (PS2, DC, PC at least, as well as the DS port mentioned above). I don't think it's a copyvio, though it does appear that information about the game was likely translated from someplace. Since most of the info in the article is only statistical, and statistical information can not be copyrighted, then it can't be a copyvio. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as exactly the kind of thing we should not have in wikipedia. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I don't care if the president of the United States plays this game with Oprah Winfrey every Wednesday afternoon in the nude, it should not be in Wikipedia.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep, for no apparent reason.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m  15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete -- besides being trivial, the article is also poorly written and much too long. And whether it's a copyvio or not is not so important to me; what matters is the tone and style, which is unsuitable. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What Unpleasant word choices trump factuality? We have the right to call for deletion over matters that are not just  fixable but well within our personal capacity to fix? We should use destruction as a cleanup tool instead of finding someone suitable  out of several million collaborative volunteers and tens of thousands of regulars and asking him to take a look? The suitability of the subject in the encyclopedia should be determined by the merits of what is said about it at one particular moment? Contributors who would improve the article should have their work hindered by forcing them to start from scratch? Our purpose is to provide the readers with high-quality writing rather than information, to the extent of supporting the deletion of information that is presented in an unappealing manner? It is better that people do not find what they're looking for than that they find it but suffer bad prose? We should ignore the possibility of fixing other people's work, a possibility that the entire website was built on? Nothing personal, but due to fundamental differences in outlook I'm throwing in a keep just to cancel out the delete above in head-counts. To keep things fair, I'll not address the rest of this discussion on this page. --Kiz o  r  21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per official policy, being poorly written is emphatically not a reason to delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

← If an article is brought to AfD on the grounds of notability, and the only current sources in the article are not in English, then asking for a translation of the sources into English I believe is moot. I would think bringing an article to AfD based on WP:N implies that the reliability in the sources are being challenged (not always the case and now doesn't matter because of the English sources now found). MuZemike ( talk ) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions.  MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability. Any relevant links are not in English, so there is no way (besides learning the Japanese language) to tell if they verify anything; besides they look like primary sources/official sites, which nonetheless does not meet the threshold of verifiability. However, I would support a transwiki to the Japanese Wikipedia provided someone can provide the appropriate translations - something I cannot do. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; DS and PS2 games have enough sources to make them notable. It's just a matter of finding them. MuZemike is wrong as to Wikipedia policy here; for one, Japanese Wikipedia has the same WP:V rules we do, so we can't transwiki something there that we're deleting for failure of WP:V, and two, non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, as WP:V says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can they at least be translated into English so that we can see if they are indeed reliable sources? I ask because sources in other languages do no good for those who only speak English. I'll gladly change my !vote if I can see that they are. In addition, it is the responsibility of those who claim that there are reliable sources to provide them, not for those asking for the sources to have to dig for them. WP:SOFIXIT also applies to those who make such claims. MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the quality of the existing article; it's about whether we should delete said article. In any case, is a link that needs no translation that shows the existence of the DS game. Don't delete articles about clearly notable things because they aren't sufficiently dominated by English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The mere existence of something does not necessarily imply notability. Notability implies significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that cannot be shown if users here cannot read the sources. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Users here can read the sources. You can't read the sources. There's a difference. I suspect we have more users who can read and understand the sources for this than can read and understand the sources for Tychonoff's theorem. The mere existence of a licensed game for a major gaming system does in fact generally imply notability; it is a virtual certainty that there are independent sources out there on it, just like every other game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Flawed logic. You don't turn in a paper to your English professor with half the sources written in Klingon, simply because some professors can read it. This is the English Wikipedia, we need sources in English. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what policy says. WP:NONENG is quite clear on this; non-English sources are acceptable. Furthermore, Klingon is a strawman; proper scholarship in many fields requires the knowledge of multiple languages. If your professor assigns an essay on Don Quixote and rejects your paper because it cites sources in Spanish, they're incompetent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From NONENG: Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. There is no translation, no direct quote, no nothing (not even an in-line citation). MuZemike  ( talk ) 14:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As MuZemike has pointed out, the policy is very clear on the point of a non-English source having an easily accessible translation, which the current sources don't provide. Secondly, I don't know what college you went to, but if I turned a in an essay with sources in a different language, I'd also have to provide a translation OR get an F. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're incorrect there. WP:V quite clearly states that non-English sources need translations where they support contentious points or direct quotes, but they aren't needed otherwise. --erachima talk 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And according to WP:NONENG, I'm very much right. It's not my fault these policies contradict each other. -- Jelly Soup (talk)
 * WP:NONENG is a section of WP:V, and says exactly what I stated above: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article" (emphasis mine). In all other cases, a translation is optional. As relates to V, non-English sources are treated in the same fashion as offline sources such as books: quotations only necessary for contentious material (and when directly quoting them, though that's a tautology). --erachima talk 05:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I see an article brought to AfD on the grounds of notability when non-English sources are on the page, I would take that as a sign of ignorance on the part of the nominator. And honestly, it isn't hard to use Google Translate to check if a source says what the person citing it claims. A rough translation is generally good enough to make sure that they aren't just making stuff up. --erachima talk 15:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With that said, I also want to point to WP:NONENG (part of the WP:V policy), which recommends that editors translate non-English sources into English so that readers can see if the sources have been properly used or not. Just to clarify about the transwiki, the above is right about the universality of WP:V in both Wikipedias, but it is possible that a subject, although it passes verifiability, to be notable in one region and nonnotable in another. I'm not trying to bend the description of the English Wikipedia into "the Wikipedia of English-only topics," as that is not true for many game articles on here. MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want "the Wikipedia of English-only topics", then what do you want? And given that English is a national or dominant language of one third the world, what region are we talking about? Are details about Liberia (an English speaking country) notable but not those about the Ivory Coast? Wikipedias are not regional, and especially not the English Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep is a review by the associate editor of what seems to be a reasonable site.   indicates this was a best seller in Japan.   is a rather short (and negative) review.  As foreign language sources exist, I think this clears GNG nicely. That said, what a horrible idea for a game. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to keep per Hobit's finding or sources from Gamertell, Gamasutra, and Joystiq. Those are reliable sources you need to meet the WP:GNG; they show significant coverage, are verifiable, and are independent of the subject (i.e. not primary sources). MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, needs major cleanup to meet the appropriate guidelines in basic copyediting, structure, and referencing. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The DS Fanboy and Gamer Tell sources are enough in English, let alone any further sources out there in Japanese, notability is satisfied IMO. It's unfortunate that the DS Fanboy isn't more in-depth, but whatever. Someoneanother 16:15, 2 October 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.