Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very erotic very violent

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 Speedy keep. Per sources added and consensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very erotic very violent

Very erotic very violent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I'm not quite sure what this article is about but it seems to be a very very poorly translated transwiki article from Chinese Wikipedia. Notability is hard to discern due to the poor translation. In my opinion, it would have to be completely rewritten in order to resemble a proper article. SWik78 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't make head nor tale of it after several readings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs)
  • Delete No idea what this is supposed to be about -- not quite nonsense but still doesn't seem to be anything more than a poorly translated synthesis of sorts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per translation; prior to the copy edit I thought it seemed like a neologism and/or synthesis of ideas. The improvements, however, have me believing that it is indeed a notable meme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Very non-notable very deletable. Looks like a WP:NEO to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Paging Dr Getridovit to AfD. Stat. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is badly translated, but it's not hard to tell that it's about a Chinese internet meme, and the reference list shows that the topic has been at least as well covered by reliable sources as most of the internet memes with Wikipedia articles. The article ought to be cleaned up by someone who reads Chinese, but deleting it because most Wikipedia editors aren't in that category would be adding to a systemic bias in favour of topics from the English-speaking world. EALacey (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. May well be notable, but without some serious cleanup by someone who understands the Chinese sources, it's really impossible to tell. If someone does enough cleanup to make notability clear to non-Chinese-speakers, I'll change that to a "keep". Klausness (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Keep Now that the article has been improved, It's possible to make a reasonable assessment of notability, and it looks like it's worth keeping (though it probably needs more cleanup). Klausness (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Very bad translation Very keep, appears to be a notable meme, though it still needs cleanup. I made a start at fixing it up, if anyone wants to assist. ViperSnake151 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a notable meme, the article contains sources and it certainly doesn't violate WP:NEO. This is Wikipedia, it's supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, not just the sum of the US and Europe's knowledge. There should be no bias against Chinese articles. If this is deleted, I suggest deleting everything on this list as well. It should be cleaned up a bit though. Davedim (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This seems quite notable, despite the quality of the article itself. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure what the article looked like when this was nominated, but as it stands now it meets notability criteria. The fact not all the sources can be understood is an issue, but the article shouldn't be penalized for that. 23skidoo (talk) 22:35, 17 March 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.