Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukumizu

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sukumizu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per talk page discussion and various edit summaries, there are concerns whether this article meets notability requirements, that there is a significant lack of third-party reliable sourcing, and that the subject matter may or may not be too localised. Since this article never had a proper AfD discussion, and has essentially just been a back-and-forth between redirection to the Swimsuit article and subsequent reverts, I'm creating this AfD so that proper non-local consensus can be finalised, lest this back-and-forth continue indefinitely. As nominator, I am neutral and don't feel strongly in either direction: I was the original creator back in 2014 (as a direct word-for-word translation from the original jawiki article), but honestly it's also a very shitty article quality-wise, so I wouldn't miss it either. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it's notable, the sources are in Japanese so I can't comment on them. Huge chunks of text with no citations, so badly needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Delete: As I put forth on the Talk:Sukumizu page, I am not convinced that this is particularly notable, and I agree with previous posters at Talk:Sukumizu that argued for redirecting to the Swimsuit page.

As a side note, the source article itself at ja:スクール水着 (Sukūru mizugi) never uses the term スク水 (sukumizu) anywhere in the body of the article; the string only appears on the page in the titles of referenced documents. If the EN Wikipedia article is about swimsuits as used in schools, any such article should presumably be titled "School swimsuit". I see no good reason for using a slangy Japanese abbreviation in English to describe such a prosaic and general subject.

About the references, User:Ineffablebookkeeper went through and assessed the 19 references included in the 26 footnotes as of 2021-09-21, writing up their findings in the Talk:Sukumizu#Discussion_per_WP:BRD thread. Ineffablebookkeeper found just two that seemed possibly usable: an article from 2016-04-21 from what might be an online fashion magazine, and an article from 2014-07-16 from the Sankei Shimbun. I briefly discussed the content of the Sankei article in the Talk:Sukumizu#Potential_sources_and_translation thread, noting that “the article talks about various schools forgoing specific swimsuit specifications and instead only specifying the color, and leaving it up to parents to pick the design that best suits their children -- effectively doing away with any official "school swimsuit" altogether... which leaves me with even less of a reason to justify having a separate article here at EN Wikipedia.”

The Japanese article in its current state lists nine references, seven of which are included in Ineffablebookkeeper's analysis. The two new ones are this PDF discussing the construction of school pools, with no mention of swimsuits that I can find, and a hard-copy book about how to draw moe-style comics, which I don't have access to and cannot directly evaluate.

The article now at Sukumizu currently has five references, all in Japanese, and none of them apparently from the JA article. All five are from the same website, which looks like a blog, and all five are dead links. I had a look at the most recent version of the first one, スクール水着の歴史 (Sukūru mizugi no rekishi, "School swimsuit history"), in the Wayback Machine's archived page here, and from what I can see, this does not appear to meet the standards of a reliable source.

I am open to the possibility that the page content could be reworked into something that might meet notability requirements -- others have commented that this subject may be more relevant in the contexts of cosplay or fetishism. Even in such a case, this specific subject of Japanese school swimsuits would have to be shown to be notable enough to have its own article, rather than simply adding content about Japanese school swimsuits to pages like Cosplay or Fetish fashion.

In its present state, however, I am in favor of deletion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: I wouldn't have access to the hard-copy book referenced on Japanese Wikipedia either, but I think we can safely assume it wouldn't be a reliable source; the author would be aiming for "here's how you draw the School Swimsuit trope", not, I'm assuming, "here's an accurate rundown of the history of school swimsuits with sources".--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 21:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect and delete - as I have previously expressed on the talk page, this is not a notable subject, and has the added WP:TNT element of apparently being a topic of fetishism with WP:CHILDPROTECT considerations, as El C noted when they originally protected the redirected page. My thoughts on inherent notability align perfectly with those given by Eirikr above. Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2022 (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.