Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of OS-tans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge to OS-tan, but only the verifiable parts, please. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:56Z

[edit] List of OS-tans

List of OS-tans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Well-written, nicely laid out, vaguely interesting and amusing. It also completely and utterly fails to meet Wikipedia content policies: WP:OR, WP:V and arguably WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well. The article marked with OR and unsourced tags for two and a half months, and nothing's been done about it despite continuing contributions from a group of users. AfD, sadly, is the next step. -/- Warren 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Completely and utterly unsourced original research. Not to mention that that there's a glaring omission... MER-C 12:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Futaba channel? Possibly notable. OS-tan? Questionable. List of individual OS-tans? No thanks. Take it to the Futaba FAQ or wiki, this is not for us. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with OS-tan. Just make little bios for each -tan on the respective article that don't have any cruft and whatnot. No sense in getting rid of all the information. Comrade Pajitnov 14:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tlxpq 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - or merge with OS-tan. I don't really care, but we don't need a separate article for this. Jayden54 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this goes, might I suggest we do something about the Moezilla article as well? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. This information does deserve to be here, and I think may warrant its own article. However, merging the good information may be the best bet, as a lot of the info is very obviously not NPOV and there is what looks to be OR in there too. Merge the basics, let anything else be added when sourced, and if the section becomes long, it can have its own article again. J Milburn 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It deserves to be on Wikipedia? Can you explain to me precisely how amateur artist work that is the production of pseudonomymous Internet forums, and as far as I can tell, doesn't pass WP:WEB, is notable enough for three articles on Wikipedia? -/- Warren 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I have a collection of some twenty-thirty published doujinshi of OS-tan material. Articles about the OS-tan have been published in Japanese magazines, and if you check them main article, this has been the cause of some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-tan#Movement_against_Netrunner). --212.38.230.22 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you have names of some of the magazines and issue numbers that they appeared in? I had one somewhere, but I can't find it now. --Kunzite 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Verifiability, Reliable Sources. I don't even see how the OS-tan article is notable let alone this one. Anomo 05:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Its no worse than a large number of web-comics and comics articles in Wikipedia. Very few of these articles ever fully meet the Wikipedia guidelines. --Eqdoktor 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Those webcomics usually get deleted, too. Anomo 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree with Eqdoktor that it is no worse than a large number of web-comics and comics articles in Wikipedia. I don't see why this one is being singled out. --NewYinzer 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICTION. This is quite similar to Densha Otoko (a romance story from 2chan), but less mainstream. There is a printed source for info on the OS-tan phenom [1]. I also think I saw a magazine article on them somewhere. I'll try to find it. --Kunzite 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Merge with the original OS-tan article and limit the list only to the notable 'tans, i.e. Windows 2000, Windows XP. Darkstar949 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Condense it down and move it over to the main article. Another Merge vote. --Theredstarswl 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I read this article about a year ago, and actually liked it a lot and found it both interesting and informative. But, as the nomination points out, the article completely fails to meet WP:OR and WP:V. It seems that a number of the characters vary wildly from artist to artist. Without a reliable source, the descriptions of such characters can only be based on generalizations and perceptions of the writer, which is both unverifiable and original research. My hope is that some of the more notable OS-tans can eventually be brought into the main article, if and when a suitable source is found. But, for now, this article should be deleted, as it doesn't seem likely at this point that this article will be fixed otherwise. Nimrand 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reminder to people voting to merge: This is up for AfD because it is unsourced and is original research. Merging is not an option if we can't verify the information through references! -/- Warren 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I belive that there is enough readily available information on the common 'tans (i.e. Windows 2000, Windows XP) that if the article was merged that it could be properly cited. Darkstar949 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (don't merge) as what's euphemistically called "original research". -- Hoary 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources exist, but mostly in Japanese: http://futaba-info.sakura.ne.jp/cgi/dic/chara/ziten.cgi, http://kazumi386.org/~ostan2/pic_uploader/ for instance. --212.38.230.22 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Japanese sources are acceptable, although English sources are preferred if available. However, the later link just looks like a repository of fan artwork made for OS-tans, which is a primary source. However, for most of the content of this article, secondary sources are needed, because deriving generalizations from the artwork themselves is original research without secondary sources for verification. The magazine that published artwork of OS-tans could probably be used as a source (because the publication itself is notable and relevant to the topic and it is independent of Futaba), but the content that cites that source should be limited to what can be taken from that source, which probably amounts to reporting on what OS-tans were featured and showing examples of the artwork printed. Because the content that the source would likely allow is so small, it most likely does not justify a seperate article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete (don't merge) - Wikipedia is only for Serious Business. 74.134.114.185 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Serious business? I must have missed that policy page. Nimrand 03:27, 31 December 2006 (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.