Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave Doll


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Slave Doll

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced since 2006, this article has no sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 05:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete  - Both Slave Doll and Kowaremono II have been reviewed but Mania counts as one source. – Allen4names 02:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak delete. One more review is needed. – Allen4names 15:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are now enough reviews to meet the notability requirements. – Allen4names 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to anime.wikia.com 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Between the two reviews by Mania and ANN, this OVA barely scrapes by WP:NOTE. Also suggest merging Kowaremono II. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. CSE hits don't show much for this or the sequel beyond the already cited Mania or ANN hits after cleanup (always so much fun for hentai-related searches...); there seems to also be some overlap with something called 'Kowaremono: Fragile Hearts Heaven 1'. --Gwern (contribs) 01:43 22 December 2010 (GMT)
 * Kowaremono: Fragile Hearts Heaven 1 is apparently a collection set of Kowaremono (AKA Slave Doll) and Kowaremono II. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge Kowaremono II into the Slave Doll article. I see a total of four reviews for the franchise by Mania.com, , ,  (two for the first anime and two for the sequel), as well as a short review by Anime News Network .  I think that reviews by two sources are sufficient to keep the article, especially considering that the Mania.com reviews are by 3 different people. Also, the one reviewer with two reviews did those reviews several years apart and changed his opinion significantly between them, which both shows a continued interest in the title and provides more content that could be used in the article (often Mania.com will run essentially the same review again when the same person reviews the same thing again after several years, but in this case while there is a good bit of content reused, his opinion on the anime is totally different). Calathan (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Gets coverage.  D r e a m Focus  11:58, 22 December 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.