Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plyverse

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. The reason I have not redirected it, despite generally doing so, is it's not mentioned at the target and is therefore of no help to the reader. No objection to a redirect being created should English-language content be added. Star Mississippi 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plyverse

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable. Mess. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Playlist. Right now it seems like 80% WP:FANCRUFT and 20% marketing spam with no shred of stand-alone notability. I might be slightly of on the percentages... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost incomprehensible. The article seems, on machine-translating the references, to be about a fictional universe, but does not consistently describe it as fiction, and is poorly organized.

An article should speak for itself as to why its subject matter is notable without the need for a reader to read the references. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to contain information, not merely to be links to verifying information. This article does not speak for itself, because it is almost incomprehensible, but a review of the references shows that they mostly appear to be advertising the fiction and the fictional universe.

An article that can only be understood by machine-translating the references, and then does not establish general notability, can be deleted safely. There probably is an article about Playlist, the Korean production company, that can be written in an objective encyclopedic fashion; but this is not it.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

with regards to ref 9, it is an episode, supporting the fact that the actress appeared in one of the television series that the fictional universe is set in (the video is loaded with the timestamp of one of her appearances). – robertsky (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love Playlist: provided that someone can expand on the synopsis in their own words (i.e. no machine translation, or copyright issues). concur with the source table by Robert McClenon. if the synopsis isn't expand by the end of this AfD, my recommendation is delete. – robertsky (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:00, 26 January 2022 (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.