Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Plot (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Some reasons why this could be notable have been put forward; but despite some apparently comprehensive searching no real coverage has been found in order to demonstrate it. ~ mazca  talk 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret Plot

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

Is this really notable? NeW MeN doesn't show up anywhere.

Found this while looking for more information on Secrets that Sell, an HGTV program. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Proving the notability of porn is always difficult, given the biases of Wikipedia guidelines. This series at least has been licensed in English by Eros Comix, which means there's a halfway chance of finding reviews. We may want to ask the WikiProject Comics to advise as well as WP Manga. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Googling for "Secret Plot" and "hentai" I get 45,000 hits. I'm sure there are notable reviews out there somewhere, it clearly a popular series.   D r e a m Focus  02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out to you time and time again, number of Google hits does not confer notability. It would be great if there were independant, non-trivial reviews in those results, but the burden is on you to look for them - and to point them out - since you're !voting keep. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 08:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Quasirandom (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This and its sequel, Secret Plot Deep, are old pornographic manga that were translated into English years ago before translated manga became commonplace. However, the fact that it lacks third-party sources is a concern. Withhold judgment for now. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After doing an extensive Google search on both the web, news, books, and scholars, I could not find anything that approached being a reliable source. The closest thing I could find to a review was from The Otaku Fridge (formerly Hentai Neko). However, this website is self-published and many of its reviews are user submitted, thus unreliable (see WP:MANGA/RS). So week delete unless someone can come up with reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm finding very little as well. I've seen hints that it and/or the sequel may have been mentioned in one or more print magazines about comics, pre-Web editions, but nothing definitive aside from the review Farix mentions. The age, as an early manga translation, suggests a certain amount of notability, but like Farix, I'm led to a reluctant weak delete pending someone finding something more solid in the way of third-party reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment I'm pretty sure this is covered in Jason Thompson's The Manga Guide. Doceirias (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While that would be useful in building a Reception section, that doesn't help demonstrate the series notability, as Manga: The Complete Guide lists every single manga licensed in English as of press time, without discrimination. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Referenced the manga's publishers and deleted redundant "see also" section. Extremepro (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: OTOH, the French edition (mentioned in the current article) does seem to have gotten some notice. The one French review site to mention it I know is reliable, currently referenced in the article, didn't actually review it, and the other hits on title/publisher I cannot evaluate -- we need a French reader to assist here. But if enough coverage can be demonstrated, I will change my !vote to keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Checked 5 French RS websites and no review. --KrebMarkt 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. No change to my recommendation, then. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok lets go for Weak delete as it fail to demonstrate notability in licensed country like France.
 * Disclaimer: I found reviews for hentai manga in French RS websites just that there is no review for this series. --KrebMarkt 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If it's been published in three languages isn't that some indication of notability? Has a Japanese editor been contacted to ask for citations? (I checked with one and they weren't sure if it's notable) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Another alternative is to create an article on Tatsumi Publishing (which seems to be notable) and merge it there. Several of their comics already have articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:06, 1 July 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.