Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexfriend


 * 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   keep. While more than one of the sources provided in this discussion would not be sufficient in-and-of-themselves, when taken together with the Mania.com review, there are at least three or four reliable sources showing notability. 1. Mania.com review of the OVA. 2. SEXFRIEND―セックスフレンド ビジュアルファンブック, which includes interviews with voice cast members and production information. 3. The Anime Encyclopedia entry, which by itself isn't significant, but is acceptable given the two previous items mentioned. 4. The Animeland review. These four sources satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Therefore, I have closed this discussion as keep. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexfriend

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article does not establish its notability as required by Wikipedia General Notability Guideline by providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that although this article does provide external links to reviews, these reviews are made by directory websites and are not considered significant. Wikipedia is not a directory and therefore such content do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article is about a computer game. It's the article is just defining the word "Sexfriend" we could move it to wiktionary.org and they would test the word for nobility. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your wish to transfer the article elsewhere doesn't make it merit a Keep. Article fails WP:GNG, which is a crucial requirement. Fleet Command (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just being a computer game doesn't mean it is notable. I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources, so no article for me. Quantpole (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems in has print coverage  in The anime encyclopedia, ISBN 1933330104, p. 578 Pcap  ping  12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not acceptable per WP:Verifiability. Given URLs cannot be used to verify anything as the text is hardly visible. I even doubt that the highlighted terms are actually references to the game. They seem like generic call words. Fleet Command (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:V is incorrect: an otherwise reliable source that is in print only and not available online is perfectly acceptable source for citation purposes. That effort is required does not negate the information. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you got me wrong. Pcap has introduced a Google Book page, not a book citation. Book citation is perfectly OK, yes. But a Google Books page which shows so little of the book that you cannot even verify whether the searched term is used in the sense that you mean or not, is outright unacceptable. Fleet Command (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, if Pcap read the book, cite from it and tell us that he has done so, I'll believe him and take WP:Verifiability for granted. Fleet Command (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of The Anime Encylopedia, and I want to point out that even though Pcap provided two links, those are both to the same source. One was a search on the anime's name and one was on a character's name, but both are for the same entry in the book.  Also, one of the searches showed the word "Sexfriend" mentioned on three pages in the book, but only one of those pages has information about this anime.  One of the other pages is completely unrelated, while another is a comment in an entry for a different anime saying it is based on a game by the same company that created Sexfriend. Calathan (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hmmm -- these two hits in the g-books hits are walkthrough guides. Which suggests some sort of notability to the game, though it's outside my field to know exactly how much notability. Also, do not overlook that there is an English language review of the game in the article, which to put it mildly is rare for a game not released in English. Plus there's the above encyclopedia coverage of the OVA, which is also suggestive. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not acceptable per WP:NOTDIR. In addition, suggestiveness is not enough. There are lots of suggestive things that give article the allusion of notability while it is in fact not notable. All these are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The game guides, you mean, for that first comment? You'll have to walk me through (*cough*) the interpration there. How is someone choosing to publishing an entire book devoted to a single game a directory? As for the rest, yes, suggestions do not prove anything to the letter of Wikipedia's law -- but they do indicate it's not an open-and-shut case, and this requires a careful look instead of rushing to judgement. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean: True enough. But the information given in there can be made fit into just an infobox. (Walkthrough section already does not merit inclusion, per WP:NOTGUIDE.) And no, unlike what you said, I really do not mean to game the system: That is just the correct way to prove notability: Significant coverage of the games facts (not statistics or tips-and-tricks).  Of course, I'd also accept if a group of sources (which I might not know their reputation) prove that the subject of the article has public acceptance. But you see, a Japanese book seems is a minority source. So, as you see, no matter in what direction I look at this affair, it looks like an article that does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that a walkthrough section should be added to the article -- I'm suggesting that the existance of a walkthrough guide indicates that a third party believes this a notable enough game to be worth publishing. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comment Delete Borderline on this one. The OVA may give the game some notability, as it has received some coverage in the Anime Encyc and other anime sources. Will see if my other anime tomes cover it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Delete. A single review and the one Anime Encyc entry for the OVA really isn't enough to be considered significant coverage, and the game itself has no coverage at all. Having walkthroughs isn't notability, as those are not typically third-party sources. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least one of the walkthrough guides is third-party, as the two are from different publishers (and are different texts). —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment For what it's worth Chris Beveridge from Mania.com reviewed the OVA. --KrebMarkt 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the review cited by KrebMerkt. -- allen四names 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment One review doesn't amount to the significant coverage needed to establish notability. 64.127.58.192 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes a second review, actually (see above). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it lack significance. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Because of the reviews, the book coverage, and the fact that Google has 834,000 results mentioning it. This lessons to 352,000 results when the word "hentai" is added.  That's still an awful lot of people that have heard of it.   D r e a m Focus  22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion dicussions — Arbitrary quantity.Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your link is to an essay, which anyone can make, saying whatever they want. They are even lower than the suggested guidelines.  All policies have been met, everything else comes down to consensus.   D r e a m Focus  08:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't play with words, DreamFocus! You, better than everybody else, know that by giving that link, I said a lot of stuff that might be misinterpreted and look like a retort. By giving that link, I expressed my concern that number of Google hits amounts to nothing. My own name brings about sixty three million hits in Google. So, do you conclude that perhaps I merit having an article in Wikipedia? Besides, Google searches different variations of words as well and the phrase "sex friend" may refer to many other things than the subject of the article.  And as for your so-called source, maybe I'm seeing something different than you see? (Although I doubt it.) Here is a screenshot of what I see: Screenshot of mentioned source on Google Books 1 You call this a source of notability? I am afraid I do not even see a reason to believe the given source is talking about the subject of the article! Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per answer above me. Str8cash (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion dicussions — Arbitrary quantity.Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nota bene: --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your point/relevance of that link? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eleven comments on eleven different AfDs, inside of 14 minutes? That should indeed be noted well by anyone intending to take that user's input at face value. --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are a mix if keeps and deletes, though, and it isn't as if he is an SPA. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of improper intentions. I have no opinion toward either keeping or deleting any of the articles, nor disparaging an editor. I merely believe (and I maintain!) that one cannot reach an informed opinion on what to do with an article in such a short time. Rapid drive-by commenting is wrong, especially in AfDs. (inb4 you did the same) --87.79.143.161 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think coverage in The Anime Encyclopedia shows notability, as it attempted to cover all anime created up to the point when it was written. I've looked up the most obscure anime I personally know of in it, and all of them have entries.  I don't think having an entry in The Anime Encyclopedia shows notability any more than having an entry at Anime News Network's encyclopedia or having an entry at IMDB, both of which are generally agreed not to show notability.  Also, I see two reviews mentioned in the discussion above, but I only see one review in the article.  Is there a second review that I'm missing? Calathan (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep References sited by Pcap meet WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 21:26, February 25, 2010
 * Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions — Per Mr.X statements. In addition, Pcap's sources fail WP:Verifiability, to begin with. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hobit mentioned why he said keep. He didn't just say per Pcap, but mentioned the references he mentioned.  And Pcap's references are notable and verifiable.  Click on Google book search at the top of the AFD.  Then click on the book in question.  Different things load up every time you search, but you'll get a good page eventually.   D r e a m Focus  08:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I objected to Hobit. AS for Pcap source, you also re-iterated it above, to which I posted a reply. Fleet Command (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - DreamFocus and Hobit's meta-keep's don't really provide any WP:RS that are convincing beyond some strange re-interpretation of both of their arguments. Where are the Reliable sources that indicate notability? Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Erb? The books cover the topic.  Looks like a couple 100 words each.  That's not in passing.  Multiple, reliable, sources were provided by Pcap.  I can see into the books and see the coverage is non-trivial.  Thus meets WP:N.  Can you explain why you find those books not to be acceptable? Hobit (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Anime Encyclopedia does 1-2 paragraphs on every North America released anime. That isn't significant coverage, and by itself doesn't meet WP:N as the work does specifically act as a listing of ALL anime released North America, not just selected ones. As a general comment, the listing is only in the second addition of the encyclopedia, as the first was released before it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it covers every anime the authors were aware of, not just anime released in North America. I've looked up anime in it that I am pretty certain never got a North American release.  While some anime get longer entries, the entry for Sexfriend is rather short. Calathan (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. In the introduction, the authors specifically note that they omitted over 1,000 titles, due to length, and gave priority to the titles with English-language releases (and some with Japanese video). (The encyclopedia itself has over 2,000 entries in the first edition, so that's approximately 1/3 cut). To include every known title would have made a book that you'd need a "hoist" to life and would require a "mortgage" to buy (in their words). In particular early and wartime titles (1979 and before), they limited it to just 300 "major" titles to represent the period, except for the World Masterpiece Theater series which they felt worthy of having its own individual listing. They also noted that among the titles released after 1979 that they decided not to include were those "designed to teach English to preschoolers, arbitrary spinoffs of music over recycled footage, and soem of the more transient porn films", as well as "periphery titles" and "stop-motion animation and puppetry" that they felt were not true anime.  :-)-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:N doesn't require a discriminating source, just a reliable one that covers the topic in more than "passing" depth. This clearly does.  We are supposed to cover all the topics a specialized encyclopedia would cover.  That's part of our mission. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing we should cover.  That a specialized (and independent) encyclopedia covered the topic means that we should too, especially if there is another RS that does so too... Hobit (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify my original point, which admittedly wasn't very clear. I agree that the Anime Encyclopedia is not enough for notability. The key is Reliable sources (check) that indicate notability (no check). Just being in the book is not notability. Just as being in trade publications of anything else don't indicate notability. If this was a business advertising in a trade publication, or an actor in the IMDB (as someone said above) then people wouldn't be making arguments that the mere mention in a directory's enough. Shadowjams (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources don't need to "indicate notability" per se. They need to have "...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  I don't object to you believing that isn't the case here: reasonable people can disagree about significant coverage.  I do object to your statement that the sources need to "indicate notability".  Coverage is what matters here... Hobit (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe you're wrong. Notability is not just that Reliable sources indicate the source, it's that they indicate notability. That's verbatim in the guideline, and I think it underlines that your approach to this article is not part of the consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you quote the part that you are referring to in WP:N? I think the vast majority of people disagree with that reading and it certainly doesn't hold up with the historical arguments for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, wait a second Hobit; you don't need to argue on the notability of the subject yet: The source which you are arguing about fails WP:V, let alone WP:RS. This source is so deeply flawed I argue that it is not even talking about the subject of the article. Yes, the phrase "sex friend" appears in it but it is hard to tell in what sense the phrase is used. Fleet Command (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * erb? We've got two books and an encyclopedia article.  I don't think WP:V is at issue. Hobit (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, hobit. You DO NOT have two books! All you have is two dubious Google Books links. You have not read the actual books. Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear from the cover that one is primarily about the topic. Further, others have indicated the contents of the book (walk-throughs).  Finally, I don't need to have the books, there is no such requirement.  I just have to be fairly certain that there is significant coverage that meets WP:N.  Two books, an encyclopedia entry, and reviews by reliable sources are so far over the bar I'm not sure what real basis there is for discussion about deletion at this point. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Such "pretty clear"ness is unacceptable per WP:V: All you have is a couple of Google Books link which you cannot use to verify the source. We all know that Google often finds similar terms. In addition, "sex friend" is such a generic term which can be used to refer to other things than the subject of the article. All you have is what I call a Weasel Source: A source that gives the allusion of notability but cannot be verified. Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete As I've mentioned above, I don't think coverage in The Anime Encyclopedia counts as non-trivial coverage as it covered every anime known to the authors, and the entry for Sexfriend isn't longer than most of the others. All I'm seeing for non-trivial reliable source coverage is the single review from Mania.com. Calathan (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep based on the additional coverage in Animeland. Calathan (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you point out the part of WP:N that indicates that broad coverage of many topics makes that coverage of each of those topics trivial? The context of the information (stand-alone or an entry in a huge encyclopedia) isn't relevant to WP:N.  Put differently Wikipedia "Notability" is quite different than the English word of the same name.  Think of them as homonyms...  Further, we have a goal of covering the material that any specialized encyclopedia would cover.  This is clearly such a topic...   Hobit (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not that being in a book that covers other anime makes its coverage of this anime trivial. Instead, I'm saying that this coverage is trivial and just being in a book doesn't change that to make it non-trivial.  Sexfriend only got about 1/6th of a page, and what little coverage the anime got was clearly not because the authors of The Anime Encyclopedia thought it was in any way notable, but because they were trying to cover a very large percentage of all anime that has ever been made. Calathan (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept that you and I disagree about if a couple hundred words on the topic is "trivial coverage" or not. The definition of "in-passing" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think 200 words in an encyclopedia is "in-passing" and you apparently do.  That's fine.  But again, WP:N states that non-trivial coverage is what is needed for meeting WP:N.  That would be true even if the authors stated that they felt this topic isn't notable.  Their opinion on the matter doesn't make a difference, it's their coverage.  Wikipedia notability and the English word "notability" are two different things.  One is "worthy of note" the other is "has been covered in multiple reliable sources" Hobit (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do want to point out that two whole books have been supplied solely about this topic. They aren't in English, but that's not a requirement. We are arguing about a molehill in the shadow of a mountain.Hobit (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked into the two book links provided by Quasirandom, though there is a limit to what I can tell about them since I can't read Japanese. The second one is mentioned in the Japanese Wikipedia article for Sexfriend, but it was listed in the section that seemed to be for official merchandise.  I'm pretty sure it is an official artbook (not a strategy guide), and I don't think it is independant of the subject.  However, the first of the two books looks like it might be a strategy guide as he says, which might show notability.  Can anyone here actually read Japanese to tell for sure? Calathan (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One book is a strategy guide covering 21 different games in the genre. The other book is more interesting; while it does contain a lot of art, as suggested above, it also contains interviews with the voice cast and creators, which suggests there is more than enough coverage there. I'm not sure if one or the other of these books is first-party, but I'd say that coupled with the Mania.com review, we have two significant sources suggesting notability. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doceirias (talk • contribs)


 * Why is everyone ignoring that in addition to the Anime Encyclopedia coverage, we have a review from Mania.com for the OVA? (And yes, that's a very reliable source -- one of the premier review sites for anime and manga). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which Beveridge got questioned on his hentai reviewing habits on Anime News Network's podcast. --KrebMarkt 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The real question is how much depth do these sources cover the topic? If they provide no more than a basic plot summary, then they are too trivial to be counted towards significant coverage. A walk-through, no matter how detailed, is just one form of "plot summary". I don't know how much depth The Anime Encyclopedia gives, so I don't know if it merely gives a plot summary or covers it in any depth. The review does analyze the OVA, giving the review depth. However, by itself, it is not enough to constitute significant coverage. Until someone more fully describes the The Anime Encyclopedia entry, I would have to side with a weak delete. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The real answer is: Not as much that fills an infobox. Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I meant facts. You know that walkthroughs do not count as valid contents for Wikipedia (per WP:NOTGUIDE), right? Fleet Command (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears as if you are claiming to have read these books. Is that the case? Hobit (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "These" is wrong. I only have read the one which I rejected per WP:NOTDIR. (Actually had it read to me by girl.) The other, whose Google Books' link I rejected per WP:V, no. That's why I'm rejecting its Google Books' link per WP:V. (Otherwise, I might have assessed it properly.) Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting that the article be made into a guide. We're suggesting that the guides are independent publications on the subject of the game, and indicate notability; the one sounds like it contains information related to the production that could be valuable in improving the article. Unless there's an invisible line in WP:NOTGUIDE that says a guidebook can't be used as a source, I don't really see what point you're trying to make. Doceirias (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Is it not obvious that the content of the walk-through cannot be used as a source for anything but for some general information and details of how to complete the game? Well, that kind of information we do not want. (WP:NOTGUIDE) As for what we want, this certain walk-through contains nothing to help verify notability and hence cannot be used as an excuse for preventing deletion of an article which does not establish its notability. This walk-though only shows that an author loved the game. Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, one of the books is probably just a walkthrough and not much use, but the other one clearly contains production information and interviews with the staff, which would certainly be sourceable for legitimate expansions of the article. Doceirias (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Won't vote per my bias against hentai OVA in general. In my opinion this one score only 1.5 when 2 is required for a keep vote. Edit see below Gwern's vote --KrebMarkt 10:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever that means. --Gwern (contribs) 19:27 28 February 2010 (GMT)


 * Keep. I've done my usual CSE search cleanup; the first 2 and a half pages of hits satisfy me. The various Japanese books and sources and the French Animeland article are just icing on the cake. --Gwern (contribs) 19:27 28 February 2010 (GMT)
 * For those who wonder what Gwern is writing about, see French AnimeLand Special Issue #9: Hentai summary. Sexfriend has an article in it thus i'm updating my score to 2.5 so it should be given a pass. Note that i won't waste money purchasing that special issue for the sake of getting that review even if a someone offers me a discount. --KrebMarkt 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Between the Anime Encyclopedia coverage (which as Collectonian notes is indeed selective), the Mania review, and the Animeland review, we've got enough coverage to demonstrate the OVA is notable, and the Japanese sourcebook mentioned above proves there is real-world info about the original game to develop this into a potentially meaty article. All of that, without even mining Gwern's additional sources, adds up to a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article is supported entirely by primary and tertiary sources.  The reviews are primary sources (like a witness to a car accident), and the encyclopedia is a tertiary source.  It also sounds like it received the same coverage as most of the other entries in the encycl, which would reduce its notability.  Since notability cannot be established with secondary sources, (nobody bothered to write any kind of article that did more than merely acknowledge its existence and do what it does with every other thing of its kind) I say delete.  Now that I think of it, there's only one review?  Aren't there more than one review sites for stuff like this? —MutantPlatypus (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviews are secondary sources unless i'm mistaken and there are two reviews one on a French paper magazine Animeland and a second one from Mania.com. --KrebMarkt 07:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviews from publications that focus specifically on Anime are primary sources, I think. I checked the Mania source, and it doesn't focus specifically on Anime, so I think its alright.  One source isn't much, though.  What kind of encyclopedic content can you have?  According to WP:NOT, its not a plot only description of fictional works, so what you've got for a plot summary is fine now, and the only other thing you could have is something on the critical reception of it and maybe a "making of" section.  (See Lord of the Rings for an example of an article on a fictional work)  The French source given just seems to be a summary of what's in edition "#Q" of the magazine, and has nothing on Sexfriend itself.  Can you quote anything from a copy of the French magazine?
 * Further, WP:CORP: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." MutantPlatypus (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are definitely misunderstanding the concept of a primary source. A primary source in this case would be one from the creators of Sexfriend (e.g. the companies that made the game or anime).  Animeland is a secondary source, and is on the list of sources at WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources that have been discussed by that wikiproject and determined to be reliable. Calathan (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but you haven't refuted (what I believe to be) my main point: This topic isn't notable enough.  Coverage in a couple of publications specifically about anime don't warrant coverage in a general encyclopedia.  Especially if the coverage in those other publications seems to be "in passing", i.e. they gave it the same amount of attention as they did the vast majority of their other items.  And super especially if it was only reviewed by two in the entire world.  Wikipedia isn't about covering anything and everything ever put on the internet or in print. MutantPlatypus (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i think you'll find that publications about anime as just as valid as other publications for sourcing information and providing notability. Yes the degree of coverage plays a part, but you are trying to tell us they can't prove notability which is completely incorrect.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:26, 4 March 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.