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 Glossary of anime and manga. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yandere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is basically a dictionary definition, and therefore doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It is extremely unlikely it will ever be acceptably expanded, with reliable sources, beyond it's current state. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much of the original article was filled with original research which could not be verified through reliable sources. Once it was trimmed down to what information could be sourced, what is left is a WP:DICDEF. I'll also note that an earlier attempt to remove some of the original research was reverted the next day with no explanation or sources added. —Farix (t | c) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The Japanese Wikipedia article seems to list a couple books as further reading. I think one of those is an artbook specifically for images of Yandere girls, though I couldn't quite tell for sure. I couldn't really tell if any of the other sources cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article are reliable, but if any of them are, they could be used to expand the English article. In addition, there is apparently a manga specifically about this subject, Yandere Kanojo. There is also this book [1] which seems to have Yandere in its title, though I'm not quite sure what it is. I would think having published works specifically about the subject of Yandere girls shows notability of the subject. Just mentioning that such works exist could allow the article to expand slightly beyond a dictionary definition. I say weak keep because there doesn't seem to be scholarly work on the subject, but still think having published works specifically about the subject is enough to warrant an article.Calathan (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two books listed at the bottom of that article are only art books, and only one is about yandere. The other doesn't even mention them on the cover as far as I can tell. I don't think this is any more notable than an article about blonde women would be. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on blond though (its not at "blonde women" since blond is a characteristic often applied to both genders). Furthermore, I would think having art books specifically depicting blond women would make the subject of "blond" notable (though of course blond is notable for other reasons as well). Calathan (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, Yandere Kanojo is a different word -- it's yan as in yankee, i.e. gangster. As the her character summary notes, the title character is actually a tsundere type. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Yandere" in the title is a different word than the "yandere" that we are discussing (it looks like the same Japanese characters were used), but after looking at the description or the manga more, I think you are right that it isn't really about a yandere girl. I think that the name is supposed to be a pun. If this manga isn't actually about a yandere character, then I don't think there is enough notability to keep this as a separate article. I'm going to go with redirect to Glossary of anime and manga, which already includes the term. Calathan (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe, that yandere (yes, written with the same characters) is explicitly a yankee-love coinage, with no mention/acknowledgment of the yandere of the article, at least as far as I read. (It's rather a meh series IMO.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm pretty happy with the cleanup job, but it really does need another source. Unfortunately the term doesn't have the common useage that related terms do.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Instead of deletion, I would be fine with merging and redirecting it to Glossary of anime and manga. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Glossary of anime and manga -- term has not shown much traction outside the subculture, where even there it's not nearly as well known as, say, tsundere. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As yet to make it beyond the anime/manga forums discussions. Anime/manga vetted reviewers haven't yet used that term in contrary of Tsundere. --KrebMarkt 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Nihonjoe unless the slim chance of further sources arrive.Dandy Sephy (talk)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the same reasons I said when this was at AFD last time. http://www.akibatoday.com/cms/archives/news/2008/08/20202500.html and other sources uses this term. A lot more information was in the article before its recent mass trimming. [2] Dream Focus 09:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which was original research and unsourced. And what makes the source reliable? Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Glossary of anime and manga. Not enough to make an article, adequately covered in glossary. Leaving as article just temps more WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge Really just a WP:DICDEF, as noted by Farix, so normally deletion would be appropriate, however since there is the whole Glossary of anime and manga, which is of questionable appropriateness itself, merging/redirecting there seems appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin Dream Focus has been canvassing several other editors to comment in this AfD, all but one supported keeping the article in the last AfD.[3][4][5][6] —Farix (t | c) 14:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) not canvassing but editors from previous Afd. 2) Closure may not be by an admin, see WP:NAC. 3) See this. SunCreator (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAC, an administrator should be the one to close this not a non-admin as it is not a speedy keep nor uncontentious. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non admin closure is still a possibility although granted such an outcome currently seems unlikely. SunCreator (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the editors that were contacted supported keeping the article during the first AfD. I can't see how that isn't canvassing editors to sway the results this time. And notes to admins are perfectly legitimate when there is potentially disruptive conduct by an editor, or group of editors, that may affect the outcome of the AfD. —Farix (t | c) 17:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware there wasn't any editors in the first Afd recommending anything other then Keep? What has changed since the first Afd that makes this suitable for re-nomination? SunCreator (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was Neutral the previous time so i did not vote but this time i think that this article was given enough time to be properly fixed in comparison of Tsundere. Personally, Yandere is a bit more present in the fandom than kuudere/cooldere but still not mainstream like Moe or Tsundere. --KrebMarkt 21:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not canvassing. Like I have done previously, if I see an article has been nominated a short time since the previous one, I contact everyone who hasn't already found their way there, regardless of how they voted. No rule is violated since everyone was contacted, regardless of how they voted. And this really should be done automatically by a bot. Dream Focus 05:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If there was a previous AFD, you can contact everyone in it to participate again, and it will end the same way. Works every time." A statement like that clearly shows that your intentions were to canvass for votes. It's an underhanded way to votestack an AfD without it appearing that you are attempting to votestack. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To repeat the answer I gave on my talk page: No rule was violated. It ends the same way with the same people involved, especially if only a short amount of time has passed. Just as if the only people involved in something are members of a Wikiproject, then it usually ends in delete, they all voting the same way more often than not. The more people who participate, the more likely an article will be saved. Dream Focus 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dream Focus, it's clear by your comment in the above link that your intention was to votestack this and other AfDs in order to get a particular outcome. While you may claim that you didn't violate any rules, you are definitely gaming the system. —Farix (t | c) 12:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you wont admit to wrong. But it's clear you canvassed just so a precious article could be "saved" and not deleted. The world wont explode if an article gets deleted. Stop taking these deletion debates so seriously. Wikipedia is NOT the place for every random crappy thing, even if you think so. There is guidelines in place for good reason. If we had no rules, any random nonsense would pop up and you would probably claim all of it would be fine. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment does anyone know of an online Japanese to English translation tool? The google one doesn't seem to work. SunCreator (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is one of the better ones -- is it being flaky right now? Aside from that, I also use the Babel Fish and Excite.co.jp's widgit (select 日 --> 英). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per dicdef. DreamFocus should probably be restricted from advertising/canvassing AfDs in future. People can add pages of interest to their own watchlists. Verbal chat 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- because what little isn't WP:DICDEF is WP:OR. Reyk _YO! 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.