Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watching Fuckin' TV All Time Makes a Fool


 * 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. GbT/c 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Watching Fuckin&

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

Disputed prod. No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Farix (Talk) 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know anything about the notability of anime or manga, but if it's determined that this isn't notable, it should be redirected to Naoki Yamamoto.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wholeheartedly support that. If it is not solid as a standalone it should at the very least be redirected. - Mgm|(talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: There seems to be a film based on it: Website (might be somewhat nsfw - seminaked girl on front page). --Cattus talk 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there's been a live-action adaptation, that would seem to imply notability.  208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's been adapted. That makes it clearly pass WP:BK #3. Keep. (The adaptation information needs to be added to the article, though, and posthaste.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... I added it since no one else did. A assertion of the 2006 adaptation and an Englsih source to verify.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Coo. And thanks for finding an English source. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What kind of live-action adaptation is it? If it is direct-to-video, it may still fail WP:BK. WP:BK requires that an adaptation be released commercially in multiple theaters or aired on a nationally televised network or cable station. --Farix (Talk) 02:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to apply wp:bk? OVAs aren't released in theatres or on TV.  Your argument would seem to imply that all OVAs would be non-notable, which is clearly silly.  76.116.247.15 (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because manga, and dōjinshi by extension, would fall under WP:BK. It is also the only guideline where has an "adaptation" clause in its criteria. OVAs will likely fall under WP:MOVIE. --Farix (Talk) 10:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm not getting, then, is why THIS wouldn't now fall under WP:MOVIE. Assuming the live-action version of this is direct-to-video (which nobody has actually established, BTW), then the only difference between this and an OVA is the fact that this isn't animated.  76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you not have an answer? You aren't just forum-shopping to ram a deletion through, are you...? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to answer. There is no evidence that the live-action adaptation passes WP:MOVIE either. As for the charge of forum shopping, were the heck have I bought up the deletion of this article in another forum? If you are going to make such a charge, you better have the evidence to back it up. There are only three ways to get an article deleted. One is by using one of the WP:CSD, of which none of which apply to this article. The second is to propose the article for deletion by using a prod tag if the editor believes the deletion of the article will be uncontested. If another editor contests the deletion by removing the prod tag or the editor proposing the article deletion believes that the deletion may be contested, it must go to AFD. Your charge that I'm forum shopping shows a woeful assumption of bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * @Farix: to be honest, I can't tell whether this received a theatrical release or not. We need someone with better Japanese than mine to research it. If this were an animated OVA, though, the consensus of the Manga Wikiproject is that it would definitely count; a direct-to-video live-action movie, I don't think has been discussed. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no consensus that everything with an adaptation is automaticly notable. If the work lacks coverage by reliable source and so does the adaptations, then both will still fail WP:NOTE and any of the other notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: It was adapted. There is times when to use WP:IAR and I think that this is a good time for me to use it. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BOOK which states "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country". Being adapted qualifies this book for inclusion. WP:BOOK does not mandate that the adaptation be itself notable, only that the book be adapted to qualify here. If the adaptation were to have its own article IT would have to then qualify under WP:NF. However, and in the meantime, the book has itself met the inclusion criteria, and a little common sense must be used here, as per the very first paragraph of the guideline itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 4 November 2008 (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.