Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowaremono II
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 merge to Slave Doll. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kowaremono II
- Kowaremono II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced since 2006, this article has no sources or citations to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 01:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'merge this is the sequel to a title with an article, so merge to Slave Doll. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also, transwiki to anime.wikia.com 65.94.46.54 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Merging would do little good if there are no sources here to support notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- Both Slave Doll and Kowaremono II have been reviewed but Mania counts as one source. – Allen4names 02:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Slave Doll Between the two reviews by Mania and ANN, Slave Doll scrapes by WP:NOTE. Therefore, it is a legitimate target to merge this squeal. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Slave Doll. I see two reviews of this by Mania.com [1], [2], but two reviews by one person on one website are not sufficient to keep this as its own article. However, Slave Doll has two additional reviews by other people at Mania.com and a review by Anime News Network, and I would say 5 reviews by 4 people on two different websites is sufficient to keep an article on the series as a whole. Calathan (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (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.