Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voices of Love


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Voices of Love

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

This article was created by a representative of Aurora Publishing as a form of promotion. The work has received very little coverage from reliable third-party sources, trivial mention of the English language license, and has only received one review that WP:ANIME can find. However, that one review does not meet the significant coverage test of WP:NOTE. See WT:ANIME for more details about the WikiProject's Aurora Publishing review. Farix (Talk) 12:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain It was licensed in France Asuka & Italy Jpop. Not in Germany & Spain. My good sense say that there is evidence of notability but the fact that it is discontinued now in France also say it probably an editorial fail. --KrebMarkt 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By "discontinued" I assume you mean out of print? (Since it's only one volume, it's not like they stopped mis-series, after all.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of print on Amazon.fr, their editors are scuttling their whole lolita collection (don't ask) --KrebMarkt 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with only one review and no other coverage beyond Aurora's own promo stuff and the "hey it was announced", fails WP:BK. Foreign licensing with no coverage in those countries still = not notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it hasn't coverage period. That coverage is made of short reviews no enough to my taste, not enough to chew :p --KrebMarkt 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide links? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one to see how succinct can a review be in France Rating 13 out off 20 the review is in the critique tab, 5 sentences and they are done :(
 * That from a serious RS french website who get ads from french publishers and host also their sample chapters. --KrebMarkt 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, it is a rather trivial review. --Farix (Talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that the only review you found, or are there more of comparable, er, length? (Though I note that when you combine it with the summary, it's not out of line with some comparable English reviews.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That probably the only RS french review, i have. There were more review for the Voices of love of the same author. --KrebMarkt 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, this is Voices of Love. Or did you mean a different series? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Zut, i mean give me you love of the same author i got confused along the hunt for review :( --KrebMarkt 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. When I searched for the title and the authors name, I found plenty of good leads. http://www.wewriteromance.com/reviews/review/140 has a detailed review on it. Dream Focus (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also a self-published website. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Contra Dream Focus, in English I'm finding only the one reliable source review already identified -- the others do not qualify, as far as I can tell. However, that one combined with reviews in other languages do add up to sustainable claim to notability. Witholding !vote for now, pending further consideration. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like KrebMarkt, I'm conflicted about this one, as it's not a clean-cut issue. There's indications of marginal notability in multiple languages, but not enough in aggregate to demonstrate to the letter of the guideline that this is notable. Author doesn't have an article, so there's no merge target. Delete without prejudice against recreation if someone finds any further evidence of notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   kur  ykh   04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above comments without prejudice toward recreation. Once nontrivial coverage in reliable sources arises, a source replacement article can be written. B.Wind (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (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.