Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexfriend

Sexfriend

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

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment. It seems in has print coverage [1] [2] in The anime encyclopedia, ISBN 1933330104, p. 578 Pcap ping 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
Comment 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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per the review cited by KrebMerkt. -- allen四names 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - That makes a second review, actually (see above). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the reviews, the book coverage [3], 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. Dream Focus 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per answer above me. Str8cash (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [4] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point/relevance of that link? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]