Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic Torture Chamber


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Erotic Torture Chamber

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable anime, unreferenced for two years (one dead link, one web site with user-contributed reviews, one web forum ... these are not what I call reliable sources). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I found one review but I don't think this is enough. If more reliable sources are found I may change my vote. – allen四names 19:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NOTE and much of the single review from reliable source review it did get is a plot summary with very little critical commentary, mostly comparing it to the other two videos in the set. I have went ahead and removed the two unreliable sources from the article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: CSE results. --Gwern (contribs) 15:33 28 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Could you explain the message you're trying to convey here? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He's linking to a search filtered to just sources relevant to anime and manga that are known to be reliable. It would help if he said that in full each time, given there's always going to be someone who hasn't seen that before. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that these web sites are "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Are any of them "academic and peer-reviewed publications"?  "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market"?  Do I need to restate that "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable"?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are reliable sources that review this, as Gwern's link clearly shows.  D r e a m Focus  14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only one reliable source which I've already explained above. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (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.