Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 O'clock Woman


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

9 O&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Even though the anime has received one review from a reliable source, a search for additional reliable sources turns up nothing more then sales catalogs, copyvio websites, and self-published websites. Having only one review does not meet the significant coverage test in WP:NOTE, nor does a non-notable adaptation of a non-notable manga make the whole thing notable. --Farix (Talk) 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I added a link to the Anime News Network, which has already been established as a notable third party media source. Also, was this thing released in English?  Google returns plenty of hits in English, but most seem to be illegal download sites, which is common when there is no legal English release for something.   D r e a m Focus  11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ANN's encyclopedia does not count towards notability. Never has, never will. It falls under Note 6 in WP:NOTE as a directory/database. --Farix (Talk) 12:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never has? Actually, I recall it having been used in several previous AFD debates.  It is "The internet's most trusted anime news source" after all.   D r e a m Focus  12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia portion never did. The news and review sections are a different matter. --Farix (Talk) 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, only one review does not meet WP:N. ANN having a directory listing does not count towards notability nor is its encyclopedia portion now considered an WP:RS beyond "it exists" which is of course not a reason to have an article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I would very much dispute that anything a manga that has been adapted to an OVA is inherently not notable, I'd say quite the opposite. This has also been licensed in multiple countries/languages.  I don't speak any French, surely there are some reviews in that language...? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my question, actually -- have we tapped our resident Francophones for a search for reviews? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Found no French review. Difficult to get RS review for hentai regardless the language.
 * True, that -- much like most porn. In that case, though, delete as failing to have the significant coverage required by WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This type of media isn't going to get reviewed in any third party media sources, so that requirement is ridiculous.  It was a manga that got turned into three animated episodes, and if its been licensed in multiple languages and countries as mentioned above, that makes even more notable still.   D r e a m Focus  17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The many notable manga/anime series articles with extensive third-party sources, including reviews from both websites and several well known books featuring hundreds of reviews clearly show otherwise. Its being made into an OVA does not meet the requirement of books regarding adaptations and the OVA is equally unnotable. Licensing in other countries has already been rejected as a notability criteria at WP:BK very recently, so also irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2-3 OVA in French is weak evidence of notability. --KrebMarkt 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to be one of the more globally notable examples of erotic anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figarofigaro (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment And where/what are your sources to back up this claim? --Farix (Talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that every single store that sells hentai sells it. You wouldn't find something sold in a thousand different stores, unless you were a major series.  Some stores sell anything, but none sell everything.  And would they order copies of the sequels to keep in stock, if the first one didn't sell?   D r e a m Focus  12:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way to [WP:V|verify]] that claim. But it also makes for a lousy standard for notability. --Farix (Talk) 13:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Search turns up nothing to help with notability. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (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.