Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 O'clock Woman (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. Tone 14:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 O'clock Woman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable pornographic manga created by a non-notable mangaka. The OVA adapatation has only recieved one review from a reliable source and is likewise non-notable. A search for additional reliable sources turned up nothing more then sales catalogs, copyvio websites, and self-published websites, such as Animetric.com (a fact that hasn't changed since the previous nomination). Having only one review does not meet the significant coverage test in WP:NOTE, nor does a non-notable adaptation of a non-notable manga make the whole thing notable. —Farix (t | c) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still as unnotable now as it was in the last AfD. No evidence of notability has yet to be found, and its single review is not enough to give either it nor its minor OVA any notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contacted everyone who participated in the previous AFD, other than the two who have already commented and thus know this is taking place. This is the exact same AFD is before, nothing changing. Keep because, as mentioned before, the manga was notable enough to be turned into three movies/episodes, has been translated into at least one other language, and is sold through vast numbers of stores with other things of this type, plus you can not find reviews for the vast majority of things of this nature anywhere. Google gives 95,700 results in English, and probably a fair number more in Japanese and French, the languages it was released in. So at least that many people have heard of it, adding to its notability. Dream Focus 20:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goggle hits are irrelevant, especially when you have not filtering out illegal scanlations and download websites, forums, blogs, etc. Second WP:BK requires that an adaptation must be notable. However, in this case it is not. Being translated into other languages does not make something notable. Neither does being sold make something notable. And "being known" doesn't make something notable either. Seriously DF, the notability guidelines are there for a reason and have a strong consensus behind them. They simply can't be ignored because you don't like them. —Farix (t | c) 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are suggestions, not absolute rules. It says to use common sense and ignore them when necessary. Common sense says you can't judge something by reviews that that type of media almost never receives. Other factors have to be used to determine notability. And it does not have strong consensus, it has a very small number of people who argue nonstop to get it to that current state. Not even a tenth of one percent of Wikipedia editors ever bothered to state their opinions there. Dream Focus 01:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status of WP:NOTE as a guideline doesn't mean that it can be ignored. If almost no reliable third-party sources have cover the subject, then it's a very good indication that the subject is not notable. In fact, you even admitted that reliable third-party sources rarely cover this subject area. Guidelines are built around community consensus, therefore they have weight behind them and should generally be followed. Exceptions to the guidelines should have very good reasoning behind them and leave the guidelines intact. But when you suggest that we ignore the guidelines all of the time, then you are not really invoking WP:IAR. The spirit of WP:IAR acknowledges that there are reasons behind "the rules" and that ignoring them should be done with care and only when it is to improves Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. And frankly I don't see how always ignoring the notability guidelines improves Wikipedia. In fact, I say that always ignoring the notability guidelines actually harms Wikipedia as it becomes an indiscriminate collection of information. (that last link is to a policy page) —Farix (t | c) 02:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It wasn't notable during the first AFD and nothing has changed. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not seem likely that sufficient sources can be found to verify notability. Mah favourite (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.