Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS-tan (2nd nomination)

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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OS-tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

While I have put a good deal of work into trying to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, it seems that it cannot be done. At this point in time the majority of the article's sentences are tagged due to for citations being needed and most of the source material for the article is in Japanese and generally hard to come by outside of internet sources of dubious use. Furthermore, the whole subject matter doesn't seem to be on par with an encyclopedic article. Darkstar949 08:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. I actually kinda like the OS-tans, but there's just no article to be found here. Same old story, really: no reliable sources, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because someone went crazy with the {{cite}} {{fact}} tags is no reason to delete this article. (Is it really necessary to cite every single sentence?) There is notability here (this, for example), there is just a need for more sources. --Phirazo 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Phirazo about the overabundance of {{fact}} tags. There are a good selection of references on the page now, and although I didn't look carefully I'm sure you can find some Japanese references fairly quickly. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be widespread. Remove excessive fact tagged biasing to cleanup article. Are japanese language sources acceptable? 132.205.99.122 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the manual of style, non-English links are appropriate only when there is no reliable English source providing comparable information available. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thus the problem, while the OS-tans might be very note worthy in Japan and would have a place in the Japanese version of Wikipedia, they haven't had the same sort of effect outside of the country outside of small groups of people. --Darkstar949 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But if it's significant enough to get an Japanese language article, then shouldn't an English language one exist as well? 132.205.99.122 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked for a note saying "Wikipedia is not local" but couldn't find it...might have to do something about that. Regardless, my understanding of the concept of notability does not include a linguistic or cultural element--while English language sources are preferred for ease of verification, I personally see no reason why every article on every version of Wikipedia shouldn't have an analogous article on every other version of Wikipedia, provided notability is properly established. Might have to do something about that, too.... --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment did you notice how many languages this article exists in? 132.205.99.122 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A good deal of the other articles seem to be machine translations of the English article, thus not necessary a good sign as to the quality of an article. --Darkstar949 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is noteworthy enough, it's widespread on the net and there are few real reasons for this to even be CONSIDERED for deletion, never mind it actually being done. Overlord11001001 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a cite tag at the top of article, no need for fact tags on everything - we are here to serve the average reader who is not interested in digging through overused tags to understand the subject of an article. I also don't see much of that material as being terribly controversial unless Bill Gates is sending his flying winged monkeys to vex us. It would be helpful to add context to lede that animation of characters is common in the culture or something similar otherwise seems like it's fine. Perhaps invite some of the related wikiprojects in hopes a bilingual expert can add clarity. Benjiboi 12:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A paucity of English-language material does not imply unnotability, and "citation needed" is used rather unsparingly by some editors; neither of these are sufficient grounds for deletion. --moof 08:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An informative and entertaining article, with information that is verifiable, and on a widespread phenomenon. Denna Haldane 16:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough citation. Please add more verifiable sources on the citation category, not just 3rd party with almost in Japanese language.

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.