Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kama Sutra (anime)

No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Original prod was disputed by IP editor. Farix (Talk) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't help noticing the PROD on this article was deleted by the same anonymous editor who deleted the PROD on Discode. As with that series, there is no evidence that this one particularly notable. Apart from a few reviews, there's precious little third-party coverage to be found. Bettia (rawr!) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These two and four other pornographic anime articles with similar notability problems. All of which are now at AfD. --Farix (Talk) 11:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In no way passes WP:N TaintedZebra (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication in the article how it may pass WP:MOVIE. VG ☎ 12:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. If you do not think this warrants a stand-alone article, that's fine, but deletion is not the answer. This is clearly an existant work of art. If it does not warrant an individual article then move this summary to a compilation page (perhaps for Go Nagai's other works) and redirect the page there. Outright deletion is stupid, this is not a spam article. In order to convince you of this, a little googling has revealed that even the New York Times has found this film notable enough to list. Do most films get attacked this aggressively, or is it only because this is pornographic in nature? Let's discuss this further please. Tyciol (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on above, NYT review now linked in article. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two reliable source reviews are in the article now; that one's from the New York Times strongly suggests that others can be found in English even though it isn't licensed. That adds up to notable to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er? If I'm not mistaken, Media Blasters holds (or at least once held) the license. That's how NYT got hold of it. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I was wrong, Kitty Media. [1] 76.116.247.15 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]