Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omorashi Sakura

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omorashi Sakura

Omorashi Sakura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A doujinshi - thus not published by an actual Japanese publisher, WP:NOTE. Snarfies 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also appears to be promotional spam. --Evb-wiki 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Makes no claim of notability, clearly not notable. Calgary 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doujinshi is a form of fanfiction, which we also typically delete unless it is notable. However, there is no indication that this doujinshi is notable. --Farix (Talk) 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Farix. Someone (preferrably someone with a strong stomach) better comb through the creator's contribution history, as he appears to have created a bunch of article about non-notable doujins (either invovling omorashi, lolicon or both) or non-notable magazines covering such fetishes. Yech. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I actually already have done so, which is actually how I found this article. Looks like he's written three other articles on single-volume manga (as in, NOT doujinshi) on the same topic. I did not nom these. I know the general procedure for single-volume manga is to merge to an author's page, but I don't know that there's an author's page to merge to in this case, and I'm content to leave them alone for now. The guy seems to have a bit of an obsession that doesn't do much for me, but a lot of his other articles seem pretty good to me. Well, you know. Considering. Snarfies 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• So Omorashi Riko-chan (another article he created) isn't a doujin? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?id=155 and the article infobox would seem to indicate this was serialized and later reissued legitimately. Snarfies 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. However, I've put the magazine article he created, Wet Set Magazine, up for deletion, just FYI. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was curious at to whether or not this is a published and sold manga, or if it was actually a fanfic as another user here suggested. If it is an actually published manga based on the Card Captors series (no matter if it used the characters with permission or not), then the notability is clearly established based on the Card Captors popularity. It does look like it was actually published and the author has in fact done many high profile spin offs, including a Neon Genesis Evangelion spin off. I think the page should not be deleted, that it should be updated and that the pages creator should be cautioned to do a bit of research into these new pages so notability and useful information can be added during the first draft of the new page, rather than after a deletion nomination. Also some pages for notable authors of these mangas would be nice, I'll speak to a friend that understands kanji a little better than me to better help find sources, reviews and profiles on these men and women that draw these. Also, does Wikipedia have a under construction tag, or am I thinking of a different wiki? JayKeaton 21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is a "hangon" tag, yes. The article itself says, explicitly, that this is a doujinshi. I'm fairly certain that you are incorrect about this NOT being a doujinshi, so I would like to see your source, please. We will ignore, for the moment, that the cover image is watermarked with a "doujinshi.it" banner. Snarfies 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well if it is certainly a doujinshi that is not notable, then perhaps the page should be redirected to doujinshi, so it describes what it is if anyone where to search for the title and puts off page recreation JayKeaton 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article, the Omorashi Tenshi and Omorashi Riko-chan all contain images (and links to) images of underage characters in sexual situations (Lolicon) which is illegal, shouldn't that be enough to get them deleted?

You may also want to delete some pictures of historical artifacts that contain images of underage humans in sexual situations, ancient Greek pottery has a lot of them and there are quite a few 18th century paintings that will need deleting too JayKeaton 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly the images aren't illegal in Japan - they were actually published just like that, along with THOUSANDS of other manga and anime (see also lolikon, shotacon, and, if you want an animated example, Boku no Pico). The images aren't illegal in the USA, where Wikipedia is based. You cannot cite a law to the contrary. If it is illegal in YOUR particular country, tough, the internet isn't bound by your local country's laws. Snarfies 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is illegal in the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legal_status_in_the_United_States

• Delete Even if it's not a doujinshi, it's an unofficial derivative. And I'm of the opinion that most H manga are not notable. _dk 04:17, 20 July 2007 (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.