Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Lessons

:{{la|Wicked Lessons}} ([{{fullurl:Wicked Lessons|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Lessons}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article gives no assertion of notability. Does not appear to have received reviews from notable critics, nor is there any coverage by secondary sources that I can see. I don't know what the guidelines for hentai are, but if they exist then this probably wouldn't meet them. Firestorm ^Talk 02:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: That would be WP:NOTFILM, and I concur.  RGTraynor  03:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @195  ·  03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @195  ·  03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. That it was licensed was [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2005-01-07/critical-mass-video-announces-cool-devices-2-and-wicked-lessons covered as news] by Anime News Network (which also, unusually for hentai, has an [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=2829 encyclopedia entry] for it), and Mania.com [http://www.mania.com/vanilla-series-wicked-lessons_article_76894.html reviewed it] (and they are thoroughly reliable source). There's third-party coverage out there, which need to be sifted through -- but not by me until after work, though. Question to nominator: what g-search did you use for looking for coverage? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Poking about some more, I see a lot of news coverage in marginal reliable sources, all of them explicitly echoing the ANN coverage. No help there. The Mania.com review is the only reliable notice I can find in English (unless some of the hentai review sites are considered reliable and I don't know about it -- quite possible). Unless evidence of notability is found in Japanese (has anyone searched yet?) it's looking like merge to Vanilla Series is the best option -- cleaning up in the process, of course. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE Quite possibly the very worst article I have ever seen at Wikipedia. It provides no sources, and can't possibly be deemed notable. The article itself ends in a sentence fragment; it literally just ends, mid-sentence. It is an abomination. Make it begone. Please. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• If a reliable source has reviewed the movie, it most certainly can "be deemed notable". It may not make the cutoff of WP:NOTFILM, but there's a kernel of notability there. Save the extreme rhetoric for self-published doujinshi that no one outside of the creator has ever seen. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Vanilla Series - no need for individual article, see also Cream Lemon. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete: The only thing I can see to merge here (if that is the case) is the first paragraph to Vanilla Series other than that its an unfinnished plot summary. Knowledgekid87 12:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• That would be the appropriate amount of text to keep after merging, yes. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (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.