Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 July 1 August >

Purge server cache

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 keep. The article has been significantly improved since its nominations and seems to meet basic notability standards. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-DEAS[edit]

I-DEAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as yummy spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article needs to be improved to sound less like an ad, but there are pages of possible sources listed on google books for '"i-deas"' that establish notability. --Karnesky (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is beyond repair but the system itself seems to be notable. A fresh start is needed to make this encyclopedic. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the stub. It no longer reads like an ad and asserts notability. It uses only a single reference now. More book references, mentioned above, should be added if they contain relevant material. --Karnesky (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:59, 31 July 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.
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. Courcelles 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor korh[edit]

Victor korh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very likely a fake bio, but even if not it hardly meets WP:MUSIC. bender235 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 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.
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. The consensus is the as this article is a BLP with no references and no indication that it meets the notability mentioned in the essay at WP:MANOTE -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hideki Shiohira[edit]

Hideki Shiohira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. I originally CSD-A7ed this, but was persuaded on my talk page to give it a try at AFD. Ultimately, IMHO, I just do not see the notability of this individual. A number of links were given on my talk page at User talk:TexasAndroid#Hideki Shiohira article - please restore, but IMHO none of them meet the requirements for notability references. Reliable, Independent, non-trivial references.

The person debating with me is of the opinion that the subject's notability is demonstrated by their ranking in their martial art. But that's simply not a valid notability criteria as far as I am aware. Even on WP:MANOTE, an essay about martial arts notability, ranking in skill is not listed as a potential notability criteria for martial artists.

As a side note, I view this AFD as something of a test case. Depending on the outcome of it, I may submit to AFD more MA bio articles were the onlt apparent notability is the subject's skill level and/or ranking. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an unreferenced BLP and there is no indication that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. His instuctors may be notable, but notability is not inherited. I found no independent sources that show notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO by having no sources that can confirm its notability. --Slon02 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced BLP and fails WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sports WP:Notability has a special case for WP:ATHLETE#Sumo wrestlers: "Sumo wrestlers are presumed notable if they have been ranked in either the top makuuchi division or second highest juryo division." IMHO the same argument can be expanded to cover all martial arts, including aikido. --Victorspm (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's not a sumo wrestler, I'd prefer to stick with the more generally accepted martial arts guidelines at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 3 August 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.
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. Courcelles 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John O.Sorzano[edit]

John O.Sorzano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax article. No reliable sources exist that support the remainder of the biography's content Armchair QB (talk) 23:11, 31 July 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifi Blake[edit]

Fifi Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was just recreated after it was Speedy deleted hours ago. Fails WP:BIO Possibly COI need to be SALTED Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources of any kind; Gnews has never heard of them. Edward321 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added in references to Thai media. Gnews couldn't search in Thai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thai888 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC) — Thai888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"COI needs to be SALTED" I can find what COI means, but what does SALTED mean in this context?Thai888 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be recreated without jumping through some major hoops. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. At this point in her career she has appeared in some soap operas and music videos, and she may have an album coming out next year. When that happens the article might be recreated, but for now she hasn't achieved the notability she needs. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 5 August 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.
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 keep. Courcelles 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson DUI incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mel Gibson DUI incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary POV fork with massive WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE problems. Consensus seems to have rejected this kind of article previously- see, for example, Dick Cheney's health. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow close as keep Dick Cheney's health is not an incident -- this is an incident that received massive coverage, and continues to be heavily referenced to this day. I would agree, though, that more should be written about it in the main article. IronDuke 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. On the one hand, it does seem to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, it's well sourced. Do we have any other articles about a single DUI incident? I couldn't find any (yeah, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but still). Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it's not a standard WP topic. However, if it had only been a run of the mill DUI, it probably wouldn't even merit a mention in the main article. It's the remarks made during it that are notable. IronDuke 16:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait...this is the "3nd" nomination? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's newspeak! Can we change it or would that screw up the afd process? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page four years ago, and it was one of the first successful examples of breaking out a controversial section of a larger page. If we have to merge all this back into Mel Gibson, it clutters it up, and it also makes it difficult for us to work together the next time he shoots himself in the foot. Keep the regular stuff in the main bio page, and the breaking news or controversial stuff in subpages, as explained further in Wikipedia:Summary style. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It still is relevant and is still referenced in the media, it has become an iconic moment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced, relevant, and, like has already been pointed out, is still frequently mentioned in the media years later. Sky83 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere: An Illustrated Introduction[edit]

Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere: An Illustrated Introduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has cites no references except itself. I don't see where it meets any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep book was originally published in the 70's, possibly earlier. Tuttle is a major importer of japanese books to the american market. i would be surprised if this book was not a significant work in the history of publishing on aikido. refs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These and others seem to show multiple significant mentions in neutral sources (id not the author or publisher themself).OK, my error (which im leaving here to show my work) example #3 is from another book by them, but that books seems fairly notable too.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have viewed the sources and they only contain passing mentions about the book. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, these are all brief mentions, true, but i would not call them "passing". two of them state that this book is a classic in aikido literature. its true they dont give an exegesis of the book. i think there may be extensive written comments on this book from the 70's, not all of them online. But, i wont belabor the point. if others want to try to find adequate refs, fine. if not, so be it, and if consensus says delete, i wont worry. Its not a clear keep in any case, but is definitely debatable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:57, 1 August 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.
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 redirect to Afikoman. JForget 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tzafun[edit]

Tzafun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is entirely based on the page creator's doctoral thesis. Without any other refs, it appears to be original research. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 31 July 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.
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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Biss[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Daniel_Biss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this page does not meet the criterion WP:Notability. Please see the discussion page for my reasoning. Math31415 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Please see my arguments on the talk page. Let me mention that similar discussions happen all the time and can be rather contentious. In the spirit of this article, see e.g. this repeated argument over Piotr Blass, a minor mathematician and politician. My main point is that if we are to keep Daniel Biss, we should include all parts of the article. In other words, we should not delete the mathematical part and leave the politics, as one might be tempted to do as an easy compromise. Mhym (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At first, I thought he had been a failed candidate for a party nomination to run Congress, but he's a failed candidate for a party nomination for a seat in the Illinois state legislature. Despite the feeling that the Illinois State Legislature is so important that people have written articles for not only every single one of the incumbents, but also for all of the people who are running for the office in November. Even U.S. Congressional candidates don't get that type of entitlement, and the Illinois state legislature isn't Congress. There's no need to compound stupidity with more stupidity. Mandsford 21:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: actually, he is not only a failed former candidate; he is also a current DEM party candidate for the seat in the IL state legislature. Given his near-win last time against an incumbent, he is likely to take this (now open) seat. Not sure if this changes anything though. Mhym (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN on at least two counts. A politician, according to the policy guideline, is notable if he/she "held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and also states that "being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." Neither of these criterion are true in this case, so Biss is not notable as a politician, which leaves his achievements as an academic. The notability guidelines are set out at WP:ACADEMIC using the so-called professor test. In short, an academic must hold high office (such distinguished professor), undertaken breakthrough research or received a highly prestigious academic award to be considered notable. Again, this is not the case with Biss. In summary, not notable as either a politician or an academic. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although he has been a failed candidate for an election, he has received significant coverage in the news for not just that failed election, but is also receiving much coverage at the moment for his noticeable campaign for the IL House and has a good chance of winning (although this in itself is not sufficient, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Nonetheless, even with the publicity that he received from his two campaigns to the IL House of Representatives, he has also received publicity for his thesis, even though it has been proved wrong. Despite this, he has received coverage for his wrong thesis, and that contributes to his notability. The coverage that he received for his two campaigns, in my opinion, further confirms his notability. WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ACADEMIC are only if significant coverage cannot be found, and I feel that it can be in this case. --Slon02 (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I explained thoroughly in the discussion, there is no evidence that the thesis of Biss, or the mistake in it, is in any way notable. The main mathematical sources of notability: press coverage about the theorem or error, people referring to the paper in other papers (as measured precisely by Mathscinet [6]), an ICM talk [7] or Seminaire Bourbaki talk [8] or AMS ``hot topics" talk at an AMS meeting on the work, or an article about the work in the Notices AMS or Bulletin AMS, are all completely lacking. Further, there are no WP:RS to indicate any "controversy" or other notability about the error. Since there seems to be almost a total lack of WP:RS for the math, the case relies only Biss as a politician. And I just don't see the case there. Everyone running for some (even quite minor) office gets a small amount of "coverage". In most cases failed candidates don't have pages devoted to them.Math31415 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Math31415, being perhaps a novice, might not know that the notability standards for Mathematicians are by far below of what he is trying to describe, and are not formalized in any such way. E.g., Category:American mathematicians has about 1,000 people. Maybe only 50-100 of them would fit the above description. Not to advocate WP:OSE, but the current notability standards for mathematicians are already much stricter than that of NFL football players. There is really no need to add much stricter standards. Mhym (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I am indeed a novice (sorry for mistakes caused by that). But, I have not seen any WP:RS given for any coverage of a controversy over, or notability of, any of Biss's papers, moreso than any of the thousands of other papers that have appeared in top journals. Also, thousands of mathematicians satisfy the criterion I give above. For example, at the last ICM [[9]] alone, there were 20 sections of speakers, plus plenary, with about 10-13 in each section. That makes for more than 210 people in that year alone. Note that Biss was not invited (at that time (2006) his paper was already published (2003), and still thought to be correct, but the work was not deemed important enough for an invitation).Math31415 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I am rather reluctant arguing the individual points as I am not sure whether they are germane to the issue, and Math31415 clearly knows more on the math side, which may or may not be supported with RS's. I checked the ICM and it is an international congress, which means maybe about 70-80 US mathematicians are honored with invited talks, and this is a lifetime accomplishment, most presenters being very senior and presumably the same year after year. This makes a case that they all should have a WP page, but I don't see a case why Biss should not. On the other hand, Biss is borderline anyway, I just wanted to refute the logic. Mhym (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. As a mathematician, I do not think he meets WP:PROF; Scopus shows a very respectable 23 papers, but only 7 of them have been referred to more than once. Conference presentations, even in large numbers, national or international, do not add much to academic notability in math or in most other fields (except computer science and much of engineering). As a politician, I am very inclusive, and will accept major party candidates for national level positions, whether or not the win, but not for a state legislature. Obviously, if he does win election, he will meet the notability standard for politicians. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 August 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Theierman[edit]

John Theierman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure that this isn't a hoax. If it isn't, I can't find any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability, so he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. It can be argued that it can be merged/redirected to Beastie Boys but he isn't even mentioned there, which is part of the reason I think this may be a hoax. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have not been able to find any sources to verify notability, so the article fails the verifiability principle of Wikipedia. Even if there were sources to verify the contents of the article as it stands, it is doubtful whether it would meet the notability requirements of the encyclopedia. Performing a turkey call on national television, a robin call on a film and being rumoured to have been involved in a failed film project are not great claims to notability. If he "mixed and scratched" alongside notable people, it just goes to show that notability isn't necessarily contagious! See WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also cannot find any sources. Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QualPro Inc.[edit]

QualPro Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some hit in Google New archive, some mentions in big papers but not enough to make an artilce out of Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Graham Davis, Sr.[edit]

Joseph Graham Davis, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable only for who he is related to (father of Gray Davis and son of a wealthy man), but notability is not inherited. The article is heavily sourced, but virtually all the sources are about other people. MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing the proposal to remove a well documented article on the oldest surviving son and heir of an infamous Nazi Abwehr agent and American oil tycoon William Rhodes Davis. The subject of the article in question, in addition to being the son of a traitor who worked to influence the outcome of the United States presidential election, 1940 by directly funding the campaign of Wendell Willkie with funds provided for that purpose by Hermann Göring, happened to have been a young man who inherited as much as $5 million from the estate of his infamous father, a huge sum in 1941, later fathered and named after himself, the only governor of the most populous U.S. state to be recalled from office by referendum, Joseph Graham Davis, Jr., aka Gray Davis.

Joseph Graham Davis, Sr. had a placque and a tree planted in his memory in California State Capitol Museum Capitol Park, and he married a French Countess in 1965.

Considering all of the above, and my observation that there was a precedent, the article on Gustav Schwarzenegger, a seemingly insignificant man who qualified as "notable" only because he was the father of the body builder/movie star who succeeded Gray Davis as California's governor. MelanieN's reasons for disqualifying Davis, Sr., are a more compelling argument for the removal of the article on Harald Quandt, a man unknown in the U.S. and notable because of his Nazi German parents. He later operated with his half brother, their father's business holdings for a time before his early death. Joseph Graham Davis, Sr. inherited a fortune accumulated through his father's sale and refining (Davis's father owned Eurotank Refinery in Hamburg, Germany in 1940) of expropriated and embargoed Mexican petroleum to the Nazi Luftwaffe and Navy. He was the son of an infamous traitor, he named a future, very prominent governor, and he later married a French Countess. Consider permitting his wikipedia article to stay, as the articles on Gustav Schwarzenegger, Harald Quandt, as well as other examples, on (FDR's grandfather) Isaac Roosevelt, (Hillary Clinton's mother) Dorothy Howell Rodham, and Tad Lincoln, have all been accepted as covering notable individuals. Ruidoso (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Ruidoso (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for several reasons. First, the subject is not notable. Notability is not inherited, so what his father or his son did is irrelevant in the context of this debate. We need to look at the subject's own life and achievements to establish notability. A plaque and a French countess are not, based on my knowledge of Wikipedia policy, criteria for recognising notability. Secondly, there is a problem with verifiability. The article many have many sources, but that does not necessarily equate to a "well sourced" article. Notability, according to Wikipedia policy, needs to be verified by independant, reliable, secondary sources. Many of this article's references are primary sources, such as estate details, etc. The editor has used these for his/her own original research. The requirement for secondary sources stems from the fact that, to be notable, other people have to be writing about the subject. The article fails the core Wikipedia principles of notability and verifiability. Finally, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for an essay as to why the argument that "other stuff exists" is not valid. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is extremely well sourced. It includes links to numerous newspaper articles supporting the family realtionships. It also includes a link to a court transcript naming all of the relevant family members mentioned in the body of the article, Davis, his father, a description of the date of his father's death and of his estate, his brother's name, and his stepmother's name. His weddding announcement includes his father's name, and his second wedding announcement does, also. The wedding announcement of his daughter includes his father's name, his son, Gray Davis's given name, and his first wife, Doris Meyer's name. The obituary of Doris Meyer Morrell includes information matching the linked wedding announcements of her marriage to Joseph Graham Davis and as well as the names of each of their children. Again, the article should stay, or for the sake of uniform policy, (Is uniformity of the policy of what is or isn't notable, a goal?) the articles on Schwarzenegger's father, FDR's grandfather, Hillary Clinton's mother, and Lincoln's son should all be put through this same "process." How many men is contempary U.S. times or in its history, have been the son of a traitor and secret enemy agent, as well as the father of a prominent governor of the most populous state? Consider also, that "Gray" Davis is confusing, in that it is a nickname. Permitting an article on his father helps to explain and clear up this informal name change. Many are not even aware that he is Joseph Graham Davis, Jr. If you have a sense that Wikipedia is leaving an historic, encyclopedic record, there is a stronger argument for leaving this article in Wikipedia than there is for leaving the example articles I have presented. Ruidoso (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've made your point twice now. Wikipedia policy is what matters and that is on what we ought to center this debate. Again, consider reading WP:OTHERSTUFF to get an insight into why the argument that "other stuff exists" is not a sound argument for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As far as a historical record is concerned, JG Davis snr is mentioned in the articles on both his father and his son, so that is in order. Finally, as I argued above, many sources does not necessarily equate to "well sourced". The sources included in this article do not verify any notability. Several of them are primary sources, which may suggest original research. We should let the debate run its course - I think you have already made your point quite thoroughly. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Ruidoso: Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks for writing this and other articles for Wikipedia. You did a very thorough job of sourcing this article, but unfortunately most of the sources simply show who he is related to - not what he himself ever did to be notable. I looked into your examples of other articles, thinking that perhaps Gustav Schwarzenegger or Harald Quandt should also be nominated for deletion. But it turns out that Gustav Schwarzenegger got quite a bit of publicity specifically about himself, because of his Nazi past, which makes him notable - and Quandt actually ran one of the biggest industrial empires in Germany for a while. All JGDSr. did was 1) inherit a bunch of money which he spent in non-notable ways, and 2) father a son who went on to become notable. The proper place to expound on JGDSr.'s family name and family background is at the Gray Davis article, and I would encourage you to add a few sentences to that article, regardless of what becomes of this article. Right now all it says about Gray Davis's father is that he was an alcoholic, which is totally inadequate. The Gray Davis article should explain, at a minimum, the wealth and notoriety of his grandfather (who clearly IS notable), and a little about his father. Since Gray Davis is a living person, anything added along those lines would have to be well sourced because of WP:BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also to Ruidoso: I second the appreciation you have put into this and other articles and the effort you have made with sourcing. I had a look at the article and will try to contribute to the William Rhodes Davis article when I get some time. I had never heard of him before and it is quite a fascinating story! I would also second Melanie's encouragement to expand Gray Davis's article with a few more sentences about his father, regardless of the outcome of this debate. These debates can be ruthless, but they are not personal, and the fact that I am supporting the deletion doesn't, in any way, mean that I don't appreciate the effort put into the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article amply demonstrates the notability of the subject's father and son, but does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the subject himself. Edward321 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 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.
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 keep. Overwhelming consensus to keep the majority of characters. Merge discussions should take place on the talkpages where still desired. – sgeureka t•c 07:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Frink[edit]

Professor Frink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appearing in a few episodes of the Simpsons and having a little blurb in books about the Simpsons doesn’t make you notable. I’m nominating this and a few other ancillary Simpsons characters without substantial third-party coverage (or even substantial appearances in the series) for deletion. These characters all have Wikia articles; if people want to find about them, they can a) go there, or b) Go to the general characters article, where some of their content should be merged when they’re axed. Purplebackpack89 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are also ancillary and poorly-referenced Simpsons characters (of these, Wolfcastle’s only been in ten episodes, and Radioactive in three):

Rainier Wolfcastle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nick Riviera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cletus Spuckler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lionel Hutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Merge to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons. There are many recurring characters of that show listed in there without separate articles, and the articles that were named for deletion here should be merged into that article. --Slon02 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some development/reception info is available for each of these characters. (In most of the articles, it's already there.) I'm not going to make a long argument for each one at the moment, but I at least want to mention that Radioactive Man was a real-world comic published by Bongo Comics: [10] [11] Plus, here's a quote from Neil Steinberg that I think is pretty sharp:

    "There isn't room in 10 columns to discuss the delights of the Simpsons . So I will limit myself to one observation, based on an ad for the new movie, which opens Friday. The ad shows the residents of Springfield lined up to buy tickets. There are 48 characters behind Homer, and if I couldn't name every single one, I could name most and knew the personalities of the rest. That's astounding. Most novels fail to offer up even one strong, memorable character, never mind 49. There aren't that many multi-layered, deeply nuanced worlds in literature -- Proust's Combray, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. Springfield, wherever it may be, is surely one of them." [12]

    Zagalejo^^^ 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professor Frink, who does have some good third-party sourcing, and almost certainly could get more, maybe keep Radioactive Man. Merge the rest to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons. I don't really see the point in wasting time with an AFD. If the articles go, they will be merged, not deleted, so why not just start a merge discussion? Gran2 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now. AfD is not the right place for this. A merge discussion should be held at WP:DOH. I think it's very rude of the nominator to nominate all of these articles without consulting with us first or giving us a chance to improve the articles. Also, Professor Frink is definitely notable enough to have his own article. Theleftorium (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "AfD is not the right place for this"? Geez, where else do we go if we want articles to be deleted? And "very rude" to not "consult first" with a group of individuals (not sure what "us" refers to) before nominating? Seriously? Since we're all down here, however, there's no stopping the discussion. They're all very wonderfully written articles, but the question concerns whether they're notable enough for their own individual pages. With [simpsons.wikia.com WikiSimpsons], there's no longer that feeling of a right of entitlement to everything Simpsons that once prevailed around here. Commentary on a DVD is not an "independent" source, and musings on IGN don't qualify either. I can see merit in the point that these should be nominated separately, with the losers being redirected to the list of recurring characters. However, Simpsons articles are gradually being deleted from here and good riddance. Mandsford 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator doesn't want the articles to be deleted. He wants them to be merged. Theleftorium (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left, I notified the project earlier today, and also explained my rationale for using AFD instead of a merge discussion (namely, that AFDs get more community imput and take less time). A WikiProject on a subject does not get the final say-so on articles about a topic; the community does. Last I checked, merge discussions are discussed on the articles' talk pages; not on the DOH project. Purplebackpack89 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons as per Slon2. That's what that article is about and that is what these characters are. Agnes Skinner even heads the list, so no shame being part of it! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor Fink - the work done on the article is excellent and the references demonstrate notability in his own right. Merge the remaining as per my original contribution to the debate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frink and Dr. Nick are both notable enough to have an article. They are not just throwaway gag characters, both have played significant parts in certain episodes, and they are popular enough that there is enough information out there to warrant an article. Lionel Hutz should also be kept- that character had about the same number of appearances as Troy Mcclure, and that character is now a featured article. So, the information does exist. The rest I suppose should be merged. As for the number of Simpsons characters with articles, when you consider the sheer number of recurring characters who already don't have an article (100+), 30 or so with articles is not so bad. I can remember a year or two ago there were many more characters with articles, an we worked hard to trim that number to only the most important characters. Rhino131 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's face facts... The Simpsons, longest running comedy pretty much ever, is a part of American culture. Every main character, and most of the minor characters, such as Professor Frink, are worthy of inclusion. If you wanna get you backhair up, there are a crapload of pages on obscure Japanese porno movies that have escaped scrutiny. Let's give the people what they want and shut down the commercial slimers abusing Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the Simpsons is a part of American culture doesn't mean that every character who appears in ten episodes deserves an article. Also, you Japanese porn argument is fallicious (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:PTEST) Purplebackpack89 02:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments I have to make, though:
Theleftorium, no one needs WP:DOH's permission to nominate a Simpsons-related article on here (or anyone else's permission for any article on here, for that matter) for AfD. The main reason is, well, no offense, but since you are a member of that WikiProject and an article from that subject is up for deletion, can we really expect you to be objective about the situation?
Carrite: Come on, you know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. Am I sensing a bit or WP:ILIKEIT?
Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfair. Theleftorium himself has nominated at least one Simpsons article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags. The nominator doesn't really want all this deleted, anyway. He thinks some of it can be merged. It wouldn't have hurt to at least try proposing some mergers at the project page before jumping to AFD. These articles don't violate WP:BLP or anything. The word isn't going to end if they're not taken down immediately. Zagalejo^^^ 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But anyway, I think I should point out that no one in this debate (myself included) seems to have made an effort to examine the sources that are potentially available. People are either assuming that sources are out there, or assuming that sources aren't out there. So, let's try to see what's actually available on Google. For starters, I found this at Google Books - an entire chapter about the depiction of lawyers on The Simpsons, including several pages analyzing Lionel Hutz! That would be a usable source, no? Zagalejo^^^ 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This also sounds like it could be a useful source in a couple of the articles that have been nominated. I've just read the abstract, though. Zagalejo^^^ 20:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erpert and Mandsford, I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm saying that if you're going to nominate six articles for deletion, at the same time, it's just common courtesy to let the WikiProject know beforehand so that they have enough time to improve the articles they think are notable. Personally, I think Rainier Wolfcastle should be merged. The rest could possibly be notable. I'm going to do my best to look for sources this week. And by the way, I don't have any conflict of interest at all. I have supported the merger of several character articles over the past two years. Theleftorium (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone needs the permission of any WikiProject to perform any action on Wikipedia, including nominating an article for deletion. I agree that it's often the polite thing to do, but you need to understand the potential problems. Other WikiProjects I could name, which are not as scrupulous as the Simpsons mob, would not use a polite heads-up as an opportunity to address the problems. Instead, they'd just watchlist the articles in question, do nothing until they're nominated, and then descend on the discussion en masse howling "Keep! Keep! OMG Super Duper Mega Important!" It's a fine line between common courtesy and canvassing the fanboys. Reyk YO! 10:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I don't care much for WikiProjects. I think it's perfectly sufficient to notify a project when their articles are up for deletion (which I did). Those articles have been tagged for the Simpsons WikiProject for a long time; if they wanted to improve them, they've had ample opportunity. Most of the articles in question have 5 references or less, and 2 reliable references or less. Purplebackpack89 15:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have probably 10 really active members, and 825 articles, we can't get everything perfect at the same time. CTJF83 chat 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ten? It's more like five. Purplebackpack89, your comment makes no sense. We have a total of 825 articles and 234 GAs (which have been written over a period of three years). How in the world do you expect us to improv all our articles at once? Theleftorium (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All GAs at once, no. All with enough references to pass NOTE in three years, yes. By the way, I would love to see you "improv" those articles Purplebackpack89 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it all takes time, now that they have been brought to our attention, we will work on them, and I might be motivated enough to get them all to GA just to prove a point CTJF83 chat 19:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no need for you to be immature and mock someone for a spelling error. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a joke... Left, you're getting too uptight with regard to this AFD Purplebackpack89 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. We've considered merging Radioactive Man in the past, but he's been kept because there is a real Bongo comic devoted to the character, which is enough notability for a page. Of the six, I'd say Cletus is the likeliest candidate for merging. -- Scorpion0422 20:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Note to closer: Deletion/merge is clearly leading among non-involved (non WP:DOH) members. Keeping is only clearly leading among involved/WP:DOH members Purplebackpack89 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All per Peregrine Fisher. I am NOT a Simpsons fan, but he's absolutely right: almost anything Simpsons-related can be sourced appropriately, and WP:DOH has an incredible track record in doing so. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All as per Peregrine Fisher and Jclemens comments. d'oh! talk 03:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep All I'm not much for the Simpsons (I pretty much stopped watching cartoons ca. 1979), but I have heard of all of these characters and these articles have very high traffic stats, and are (generally) well written.Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Now that I think about it, I agree with Erpert. There really is no reason to clutter up WP with all these cartoon characters; the only rationale for keeping was popularity, and that does not seem to be a good-enough reason. Delete them entirely. Bill Whittaker (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't what I said; I said most of the articles should be kept. Only Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character) should be merged. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Professor Frink too? I've improved that article quite a bit and it clearly meets WP:NOTE. Theleftorium (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I keep saying "kept", not "deleted"! Are y'all paying attention? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking to Bill, not you Erpert. Theleftorium (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll shut up then, lol. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm back. What'd I miss? I originally supported keeping because, although I am not a fan, I have heard of them, and if a geezer like me has heard of them, then they are probably notable, even if they are just cartoons. Erpert pointed out that this is poor reasoning, and after considering the matter, I decided that he was right, and that popularity is not reason enough for notability. Ipso-facto I changed my vote. Now Erpert is bellyachin' about it. I remember why I usually avoid pop-culture articles. (FYI: My wife said that the haircut I gave my son makes him look like Cletus, which is how I got on this to begin with. Damn Norelco clippers.) Bill Whittaker (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I do not necessarily believe that all of these articles should be kept, but The Simpsons universe is so expansive that group AfDing them is not the answer. Professor Frink, by the contents of his article, is clearly more notable than Cletus. As for Lionel Hutz, he could have a similar level of quality to Troy McCluire, due to both being voiced by the same person, and as such, having their characters go through the same treatment. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cletus Spuckler. And the rest (except perhaps Radioactive Man), but especially Cletus. It makes sense to merge when an article meets this criteria from your deletion policy: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." That avoids chasing multiple links while researching. Conversely, too much merging makes the major article long and unwieldy, and forces the reader to wade through excessive material extraneous to whatever he or she seeks.
Cletus has been a recurring character since Season Five, and (as the article's final paragraph noted), "He is named the 7th (out of 25) of IGN's Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral Characters." The article section, Cletus Spuckler#Children, is an amusing commentary on celebrities who give their children unusual names, and is very likely to be expanded as the family grows every time we see them. The length of the article makes it likely to clutter up the List of recurring characters in The Simpsons article, which currently includes 67 characters and 169 footnotes.
I agree it could be referenced better, but it does not meet deletion criteria for "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources . . ." and "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". It may have errors, but I haven't found any, and the solution for that is editing. --Dogger55 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all coverage in books about the subject that is more than a mere listing is sufficient for notability., as in other subjects. Whether we might do better with combination articles is to some extent just a question of style, but at present I think the best protection against slow removal of content is to have separate articles. If some are not covered at all, they can be renominated separately. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Cirt. Jenks24 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frink, I think that lack of screen time would not matter if the majority of the article meets notability with external sources (there's a character page that only appeared in one TV episode, but is still good article (I think that this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is valid in that case). -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:10, 8 August 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.
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, probably to Guest house, although the exact destination may be discussed further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guest house (secondary suite)[edit]

Guest house (secondary suite) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this article will ever evolve beyond being a dicdef. Maybe merge those two short lines into Guest house (lodging)? bd2412 T 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I think that the distinction being propounded is that the one is a form of hotel, open to the public, whereas the other is, basically, guest quarters in a private home for visitors that form a secondary suite. Now whether that distinction exists outside of Wikipedia, and whether this is amply and properly addressed in secondary suite, is a different matter. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's just a definition of the phrase "guest house", which anybody could deduce to mean a house for guests. (I'm a little weary of Guest house (lodging) as well, but that's not the article up for deletion here.) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like more of a wikitionary topic to me. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic is very common and has received very significant secondary coverage.[13][14][15][16] Merging this topic into Guest house (lodging) would be nonsensical as that is a different topic.--Oakshade (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A guest house in the form of a secondary suite is still a form of "lodging", is it not? bd2412 T 15:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, while I agree that the term "guest house" is probably used quite often to refer to a house where guests say, there is really not a big enough distinction for it not to be merged into the lodging article. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Guest house (lodging). I don't think that this article has enough content to justify having a separate article, and most of it is already mentioned in the Guest house (lodging) article. --Slon02 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Guest house (lodging)Secondary suite.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a merge is an acceptable resolution. bd2412 T 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect, but to secondary suite. Up until a couple of hours before it was nominated, it had a little bit of content in it [17], [18] -- either an incredible coincidence or a tag team effort, but I'll suspend disbelief in the interests of good faith. There are other examples besides Kato Kaelin living in the guesthouse next to O.J. Simspon; there was the guy who lived in the guesthouse next to Sharon Tate's home as well, and probably examples in classic film-- but there's nothing here that couldn't be referred to in "secondary suite". This isn't quite the same as "guest house lodging" where people pay for the privilege of being guests, such as a bed and breakfast, although thanks to the wonderful job of editing right before the nomination, that wasn't clear. Mandsford 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll find that the "wonderful job of editing" was really the editing that turned an article about guest houses (the form of hotel) into such confusion, by adding an example that wasn't about the subject, that it eventually resulted in one editor starting a completely new article, now to be found at guest house (lodging), on the very same subject as this article originally had in its early revisions (q.v.). It's the same editor who added that text in the first place that you are now suggesting conspired to remove it. That fact renders such conspiracy theories at best rather ill-considered. Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dammit, my sinister plan for world domination will be ruined if our cabal can't engineer the redirect of this substub into a more complete entry! bd2412 T 04:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep significant real estate phenomenon. It's a separate building, not just guest quarters, and figures largely in discussions & advertisements of luxury real estate DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Guest house. This is the standard defintion of a guest house. Guest house (lodging) is equally poorly named and should be merged. The only difference is the one is owned by a hotel, the other by private persons. Also, a page Guest house (disambiguation) should be created. Abductive (reasoning) 21:10, 8 August 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.
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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Services Organization[edit]

Administrative Services Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems a little used trade name or trademark, not a generally used term: the refs (two of which are identical) are mostly promotional, the few google hits the same. Written like an advert though that could be fixed if better sources were found. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We didn't intend to violate any Wikipedia rules. The term ASO is broadly known in the payroll and employee benefits industry. I agree that more editing is a great idea. The use of duplicate articles was, in fact, an error. The first of which was never intended for submission and should be deleted. The use of the "Administrative Services Organization" article would help define a sometimes confusing or misused term. The article has been revised and will be revised further.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford.joe.j (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 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.
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 Speedy keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wasow[edit]

Tom Wasow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure to meet notability per WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROFESSOR Slon02 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As he holds a named chair (according to the linked Stanford bio page), the article meets criteria 5 of WP:PROF. The article requires expansion and improvement so maintenance tags rather than deletion is the way to go. Fæ (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He clearly passes WP:PROF#C5 but we also need to worry about whether there is enough information about him in reliable sources to support an article. I think there is; I have been working on expanding it from the sub-stub state it was in when it was nominated to a more viable stub, and have added several sources as the basis for the expansion. Most of them are from his employer, but since we're relying on them to support uncontroversial factual information about him that should be ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on above basis. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as nobody else has spoken for deletion of the article, and I, the nominator of the AfD, now see that this article does meet WP:PROF#C5. --Slon02 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Action Outdoors TV Show[edit]

Action Outdoors TV Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could certainly be wrong on this, but I was unable to find any reliable sources to verify this article's information and establish notability. If someone can find some sources I'll withdraw this nomination pronto. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was also unable to find any reliable sources for this article that would establish notability. --Slon02 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 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.
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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afro-Latinos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Afro-Latinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:Off2riorob insists on blanking the list. I think having an empty article is stupid, if there is no content worth keeping we should simply delete the article. Schuhpuppe (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think this article establishes enough notability since it is too general. I don't think we need a list of every ethnic group, we don't have general lists of all white/black people of notability either. Additionally, I think the criteria established in this article will be very difficult to prove for each an every person listed there. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Notability has already been found to be given in the first discussion. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ive read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and i dont see an absolute requirement that each name on a list have a source cited in the list showing their qualifications for inclusion. lists like List of Asian Americans dont have such citations. This may be a failing of that list, but then this is true for literally thousands of stand alone lists with the exact same inclusion issues. I believe that while its always helpful to have citations within a stand alone list showing the item qualifies for inclusion, in cases like this list, having the target article show the persons afro latino status is adequate. The definition of afro latino, while somewhat convoluted, is rationally defined. The lede paragraph is speaking to the wikipedia editors, not the readers, and that text needs to be changed (i will fix it if it survives afd). I know that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, but consensus and precedent shows that we accept, or at least widely tolerate, identity lists like this without the references being here. Of course, any redlinked names or unlinked names need reliable citations.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominated because someone insists on blanking the list, and nominator thinks that having a blanked article is stupid? Too bad you don't think that it's stupid for an editor to insist on blanking the article. I think that renominating an article on the same day that the last debate closed has to be a record. Assuming good faith on this one is like turning the other cheek-- it's what we're supposed to do, but there are some situations where it invites trouble. Mandsford 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to mention that I do think the article should be kept , provided the content (or at least part of it) is added again. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not sure why you nominated it for deletion. I'd revert Off2robrio's changes myself and face the consequences, but I'm not allowed to do that because you put a deletion template on there. At least one editor was persuaded that the article should be deleted, so I don't even see how you can withdraw it now. You might want to contact an administrator for guidance on what to do next. I imagine that people will offer their opinions about all of this, and you might not like some of what you read. Mandsford 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did revert his changes. Three times :). I intended to create the AfD sort of as Off2riorob's proxy -- it's him who wants the content gone, I just want it to be done properly or not at all. But yes, there probably would have been better ways to sort this out.
Anyway, what's wrong with reverting his changes? It's not like you couldn't readd the AfD template or copy the text in manually. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar case [19] going on right now over essentially the same problem-- an AfD discussion was closed as a no consensus, an editor then removed the content on grounds that it was unsourced and could not be put back in until it was sourced, and people who attempted to revert the change were accused of incivility. That type of aggressive act didn't go unchallenged, hence it's on a request for editor assistance board for a ruling from the powers that be on whether that should be considered as disruptive. I'm not sure where anybody got the idea came about that he or she should go through articles and immediately remove anything that doesn't have a citation next to it. Nearly everyone is acquainted with the polite notices described in Wikipedia:Citation needed. The only situation in which unsourced content "must be removed immediately" is where there is "unsourced contentious material about living persons" (which is consistent with the possibility of immediate and irreparable harm), see WP:V. There is nothing contentious or libelous, I would add, if someone were to be mistakenly described as black. Although Off2riorob may feel that he is in the right, blanking a page cannot be described as anything other than disruptive. We're all part of a community here. Mandsford 23:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no list at all. I don't know what mess a couple of editors are creating here but this AFD only just closed about this article and reading it may well help you to understand. Also User Schuhpuppe has nominated the article for deletion and then hilariously attempted to vote comment in a keep manner. Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There once was a list, but someone blanked it... --Schuhpuppe (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think that what we have here is a larger problem that may need to be dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've looked at comments left on my page (User talk:Mandsford) and on User talk:Schuhpuppe, User talk:Tivedshambo and User talk:Mike Cline, all within the last 24 hours and by the same editor, some of them rather hostile, and I think that in all four cases, people have done well to keep their cool. I don't like what I see, particularly statements to others that they may be blocked. I've taken controversies up to WP:ANI in the past, and I've been taken there myself, and I find that it's better than losing my temper. I don't want anybody blocked, but I do want hostile comments to stop. Mandsford 14:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no substantial reason why not to have such a list. We already hve thousands of similar lists (for example, List of black Britons). The argument saying it's unsourced is wrong, since the sourcing should be in each individual article and not after each listing in the list. Also, I'd consider splitting this huge list into the various countries in Latin America (List of Afro-Brazilians, List of Afro-Cubans, etc.) Maashatra11 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additions must be sourced reliably. Other stuff exists is just a poor reflection on Wikipedia and not a reason to keep. The idea that you can create huge uncited lists with a claim that the claim is reliably sourced on another article is against all wikipedia guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll add that I think this is a useful list per wp:LIST. It can be splitted though, as I stated above. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if the contents of the list ARE sourced regarding their ethnicity in the articles on the people here, then all we need to do is add those exact same sources to this list. and if they arent, we remove the names. My problem with deletion here is that this is an inherently notable subject, with clear inclusion criteria. WP has no deadline or timetable. so the list is unsourced, and others like it are unsourced: big deal, lots of material is unsourced, we remove the unsourced material, leave the sourced, and if the subject is notable, it stays. We have to assume good faith here, otherwise, how could we even accept CATEGORIES for articles? you go to "Category:Costa Rican people of Black African descent" and there are no sources. do we delete the category? of course not, but its assumed the articles are sourced properly. i have removed categories from articles where there is no source saying so, even when it seemed likely they were in that category. sometimes i do search for the source, or maybe i put a comment on the talk page alerting people. if its a controversial category, for a living person, i will delete it. I do get that having too much unsourced material in lists is really stupid looking, and potentially dumbs down WP. id like to see at least a statement next to each name saying what they are famous for, and their specific ethnicity. If someone wants to pay me to do this, (not a subject of the list, or an advocacy group), id be happy to set aside a half day to do this. however, despite my excessive hours logged here, i am (like all of us), a volunteer, and my eyes are bigger than my grasp, or time available to grasp. ok, ill get off my soapbox. Oh, and i do see value in maashatras idea of splitting, as the main article on afro-latins does link to more specific articles, and the category i cited is one such.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, lists are a bit evil imo and of little to no value, I don't like catagorys much, but at least there is some control at the article, there must or should or at least usually is some cited content in the article that supports the category Brazilian_people_of_Black_African_descent we already have such as this category. Lists by there very nature are policy wastelands and no one watches them and people add whatever they think is correct or whatever they find funny in some cases. It is also not an easy work to cite the ancestry of people. This list List of black Britons has gone for colour instead of genetics and is another awful policy violating waste of server space. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dont see how we agree if we disagree. i do believe lists are valuable, as are categories. there are clear abuses of lists and categories, but again, my eyes see more than i can grasp. Some lists are heavily watched, and kept in line, just like some articles are. I do agree that accurate ancestry documentation is hard, and too much classification by "race" is, in essence, racist (not anti-x racist, but racist based on outmoded pseudoscientific classifications), but we have an out: we arent demographers or geneticists, we write an encyclopedia. if person x is well known as a "black puerto rican", and in part identifies as such, then for our purposes he is, even if he is, say, 25% east african, 25% native american, 25% italian, 25% melanesian, moved to puerto rico from ireland as a boy, was born in south africa, was raised jewish and is a neopagan to boot. they get to be on a lot of lists and in a lot of categories, even though its all somewhat silly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above keeps. Some of the delete "rationale" is on its face inconsistent w/wp policy on lists, and simply personal non-consensus POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as for similar categories. If an editor insists on removing content for an article or blanking it, does this show we should delete it? I could get rid of anything that way. If inadequately sourced, it should be sourced, not blanked or deleted.To be removed, it would be necessary to show it intrinsically was unsourceable DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur as well w/DGG's comment as to Off2riorob's blanking of the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the second AFD and the first was two weeks long and I repeatedly commented as to my intention to remove the uncited content and I have done. I don't even support deletion, I don't care, someone nominated it again and then voted keep...hilarious, I will watch this list and attempt to help it be a valuable resource. Keep yes great, go ahead , add the citations. My blanking of this list is absolutely within policy and the best thing that has ever happened to this rubbish list. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If our article on Afro-Latinos is correct, there are over 100 million of them. We ought to be able to find more than two who are notable. Fences&Windows 00:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I only believe ethnic groups should be highlighted if they can be clearly identified (as in a significant number of them would be indentifiable within one or two questions, or even on sight), minor (much less than 100 million), and/or are also an interest group socio-economically/politically (like Albanians in France). I feel this way because Wikipedia is full of notable people, period, and a person's race generally has no bearing on their inclusion. So for a list to be made, the ethnic group must somehow be notable in its own right. Groups like Greek-Americans, or Chinese-Nigerians, or British-Indians come to mind. Latino is such a broad word, a word that some "Latinos" reject and could easily include the majority of the Western-hemisphere. Considering that probably as many as MOST "latinos" have some african ancestry at this point, what makes someone afro-latino? Does this include Garifunas in Belize, Honduras and Guatemala? Does this include the decedents of black carribeans that were shipped to panama to build the panama canal, and who speak Spanish, but who may or may not still consider themselves carribean? Does this include Hatians who were raised in the dominican republic or puerto rico? The distinction of Afro-Latino is so dubious, I think this list will turn into fancruft, original research, free-for-all. It's the equivalent of a "list of notable people of mixed ancestry".--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to a category, which would be self-maintaining; additionally, this list generates BLP issues due to lack of citations. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 9 August 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.
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. Courcelles 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purush Pal Jamae Masjid[edit]

Purush Pal Jamae Masjid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Mosque with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:28, 31 July 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.
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue[edit]

Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability for this film is that it "won... sixth place" in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it picks a "best" film. 1998s winner, for instance, was Subway Serial Rape: Lover Hunting.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Actually it picks a list of "Best Ten" pink film releases for a given year. This can be seen in the headings of the listings: - 1988年度ベストテン "Best Ten, Year of 1988" to [http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~p-g/award/2009.htm - 2009年度ベストテン "Best Ten, Year of 2009". The claim that only the #1 spot is "notable" is completely original to the nominator here, who has never shown indications of knowledge, interest, or even tolerance of the subject. The top five films are screened at the ceremony. Obviously this is a lower-profile genre of Japanese cinema, so the sourcing comes slower to us in the English-speaking world. However, films all the way down the list have later seen English-language releases, reviews, etc. sometimes decades after their initial release. Bitter Sweet (2004) is one I've seen recently, and it stands out as a particularly fine film. It was only given 10th Place, but to dismiss this thoughtful, moving, well-made little indie film as merely "titties" and "porn", based on its genre and its poster, would be ludicrous. The "Ten Best" films are just a fraction of the total pink film output, which is usually more than 100 annually. The award is a confirmation of notability. That fact trumps the possibility that sourcing on a film outside our language, area or time-period may not available to US-based, English-speaking editors right now. As a pink film released by a major pink studio with major personnel, it will have been reviewed, covered in Japanese sources which cover the genre, as well as mainstream sources, so the sourcing is there. I don't yet have access to those sources. But the article as it currently stands is a stub giving basic information on a notable film. The article can only expand, since all of the sources used are reliable, and all of the facts are sourced. This is the way Wikipedia has worked in the past, and this is how it should continue to work. Dekkappai (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm curious why after the nominator's assertion was proven false, and your question as to the notability of all the films on the list was proven to be answerable in the positive, you then vote Delete based purely on the Anglo-biased GNG. (GNG makes the assumption that sourcing for all "notable" subjects in all languages is as easily available as that in English. English sourcing is far, far easier to locate on the Web than Japanese sourcing which, even when it does come available, is soon taken down and removed from archives. When ignoring other signs of notability relevant to Japanese subjects, this results in extremely biased coverage.) Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this article cites mainly the web site P*G Website -- it is not obvious to me that this is a reliable source adequate to verify content or establish notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOTFILM, and has no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [20], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Systemic bias, if these are claims you feel so strongly about, then about 90% of Wikipedia's film articles should disappear. This genre is being specifically and improperly targeted.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The nominator and the only "Delete" so far grossly misrepresent the facts here. The Pink film is a notable genre, the Pink Grand Prix is a notable award, the film is made by notable people, it's a notable film. The Pink Grand Prix is in no way "an appendix of the porn-marketting machine". The article is about a notable pink film. A pink film made by a major studio, major personnel, and which has been awarded by a major awards ceremony -- the major awards ceremony in its genre. P*G is the major journal covering the pink film genre, and has been for over 20 years. It is noted as such by Jasper Sharp, leading English authority on the pink film genre, in Sharp, Jasper (2008). Behind the Pink Curtain: The Complete History of Japanese Sex Cinema. Guildford: FAB Press. ISBN 978-1-903254-54-7.. Also several mainstream Japanese sources call the Pink Grand Prix the "Academy Awards" of pink. In a genre which typically produces over 100 works per year, every film awarded at this ceremony is "notable" since it has been noted by the major award of the genre. There is no real question of notability here. The sourcing on the film itself is skimpy in the article. Typical of these types of POV-crusades, the mass-deletion makes it hard to add sourcing to each of the articles. Though the proof of notability is already in the article, I will attempt to add more sourcing later. Dekkappai (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another non-notable film churned out by the Japanese porn industry and with minimal/dubious sourcing. No one is arguing about the notability or importance of the Pink film genre in general: the argument here is whether this particular title (and similar others) is notable enough to justify a self-standing article. The English title also appears to have been made up arbitrarily by the article author. --DAJF (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • THIS PARTICULAR TITLE was awarded by a notable award ceremony in its genre. Somehow I had the impression you were one of the "honest" deletionists... Dekkappai (talk)
  • A few notes on the general significance of pink film This mass-deletion of pink film articles might benefit from a few points on the genre. The biased cultural point of view driving these nominations: "Porn! Delete!" is completely inaccurate. The nearest equivalent in the US would be the grindhouse/drive-in cinema of the '60s and '70s. The difference is that the Japanese ones are often made by notable, accomplished filmmakers and performers. These films are in no way comparable to what Westerners currently think of as porn. Some of these films-- Jasper Sharp says 10%-- which is approximately the number represented at the Pink Grand Prix-- are well-made, significant, artistic films which employ eroticism as only one element. The films can be in any genre-- horror, comedy, thriller, even science fiction. The only requisites to belonging to the genre are budgetary, shooting schedule, and the existence of a minimal amount of nudity. A few notes:
    1. "SM Queen" Naomi Tani was nominated for a Japanese Academy Award for work in pink and Roman Porno.[1][2]
    2. Actress Junko Miyashita was also nominated for Best Actress at the (mainstream) Japanese Academy Award for a performance in a Roman Porno. She won at other mainstream film awards.[3]
    3. Noted (mainstream) Japanese film critic Tadao Sato calls pink film director Kōji Wakamatsu, one of "Japan's leading directors of the 1960s." [4]
    4. (US) Academy Award-winner, Yōjirō Takita, has such pink films in his filmography as: High Noon Ripper (1984), Molester's Train: Please Continue (1982), Molester's Train: Hunting In A Full Crowd (1982), Molester's Train: Rumiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Keiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Momoe's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Underwear Inspection (1984), Molester's Train: Blast Off (1984), Molester's Train: Best Kept Secret Live Act (1984), Molester's Train: Seiko's Tush (1985), Molester's Train: One Shot Per Train (1985), Molester's Train: 1 Centimeter From The Wall (1985), Molester And The Female Teacher (1984), Molester's School Infirmary (1984), Molester's Tour Bus (1985), Molester's Delivery Service (1986), Pink Physical Examination (1985), Serial Rape'' (1983), etc., etc., etc. Is Wikipedia going to join the ranks of the vilest of human endeavors by censoring the work of this master of cinema because his early works unashamedly display "titties" and "porn"?
    5. From November 1971 until 1988, Nikkatsu studio, Japan's oldest major film studio, made almost nothing but "Roman porno" films. (Director Masaru Konuma says that there was essentially no difference between Roman Porno and pink films except for the studio's higher budget.)[5]
    6. Kinema Jumpo, one of the major Japanese cinema journals, lists several Roman porno/pink films on its list of the 200 best Japanese films of the 20th century. Included on the list are such Roman pornos as : Crazy Fruit (狂った果実 - 1981), Love Hotel (ラブホテル - 1985), Rape! 13th Hour (レイプ25時　暴姦 - 1977), Angel Guts: Red Porno (天使のはらわた　赤い淫画 - 1981)[21]... For an Anglo-centric Wikipedia editor to dismiss films of the genre as "titties" and "porn" is a reflection on the educational background and the limited world-view of that editor, not of these films' place in world cinema. Wikipedia should realistically cover world cinema, not reflect the bias of individual editors. Dekkappai (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasoned comments above. Notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Western (or personal) POV should not negatively color discussion of Eastern art or Eastern culture, as cultural standards greatly vary. Perhaps someone from WP:CSB might wish to join in here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see the relevance of systemic bias? There's no dearth of articles on pornography generally, or on pink film, AV idols etc.; quite the contrary it would seem. Anyway, I would argue for the deletion of a non-porn English-language film that won an award but for which there were no RS for V coverage; for me it's not about this being porn or foreign. Mass-deletion might not be such a problem if there were not mass-creation of substubs. It would perhaps be better for one good article (or good stub) to be created at a time instead, particularly knowing that porn tends to be a perennial target for AfD. I'd like to see more thorough coverage of pornography on WP, but for me that does not mean having articles about specific films and performers about which there is practically nothing to be said, no possibility of encyclopedic coverage. Pink film is WP-notable, many pink films are WP-notable, I accept the award as apparently WP-notable, but getting a WP-notable award does not mean every film that received the award is WP-notable, or that it is WP-notable enough for its own article per NOTFILMS, as I stated in my comment above. Having an award is not in itself proof of notability; it is an indicator there might exist enough reliable sources for an article, and it is really the RS which are the proof of notability. If there aren't RS, an award-winning film may merit only being included on a list, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Winning a notable award is proof of notability both in the real world and at Wikipedia. Notable subjects in foreign languages/cultures/different time periods are more difficult to source. That is the purpose of subject-specific "notability" definitions, not to create further "notability" hurdles. The assertion of notability, and the proof of its notability are in the article. "bare statements of fact" is encyclopedic style. I could embellish, and then I'd be accused of "fan" writing. Working in this genre for several years, I know that sourcing is out there on films with this much notability, and will be added to this article. This is a completely appropriate stub on a notable film. Deleting an article of this much notability while retaining hundreds of English-language films of much less notability is practically the definition of systemic bias. It is bad for Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the most important false statement in the nomination, and in some Delete votes, is that this film does not pass WP:NOTFILM. It most certainly does pass per Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles, "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." This is noted, "This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion." (First criterion: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") This note, in my experience, is correct, as I have stated above. As indicated by this notable award, these films are covered by reviews and secondary sources, but because of the barriers of language, Japanese sourcing availability, and distance, these sources are found more slowly than are their English equivalents. Also, these films are distributed nationally through OP Eiga, 50 years history as perhaps the major pink film studio. This latter fact further passes [22]], "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." OP is a major studio, and the award is proof beyond its "merely having been produced". There is no valid reason to delete this article. Dekkappai (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context from WP:NOTFILM: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: [...] The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." It is not "false" to say this film fails NOTFILM; it fails because it is one of those exceptions where a film won an award but RS do not exist. As I stated above, an award is an attribute that generally indicates that RS may exist for a film, an award is not a proof in and of itself of Notability. There must be RS for things other than the fact the film exists and won an award. NOTFILM doesn't mean one can speculate such sources exist or speculate that they will be created in the future if a film won an award, it's only thought to be likely that they may exist, and one must actually have the sources in hand ideally at the time of article creation, but if not then, now. They should not be a challenge to find if it is notable. Find them and I'd be quite happy to change my recommendation. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. You are incorrectly interpreting WP:NOTFILM. The award indicates the film is notable and that reliable sources exist. Because of cultural, linguistic, and other matters we have not yet located those sources. The sources we DO have could not possibly be MORE reliable-- the leading journal covering the genre, and production information from the Ministry of Education. Subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NOTFILM help to prevent biased coverage by users who incorrectly assume that sourcing for all subjects is equally available. This is a notable film. More sources exist. A well-sourced stub with proof of the film's notability is sufficient until those further sources are found. Dekkappai (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "interpretation" is necessary; the guideline is quite clear as I quoted it above, but I welcome and encourage everyone to read all of WP:NOTFILM for themselves. If there is really some question about the meaning of it, perhaps it should be raised on the NOTFILM talkpage or Notability noticeboard. I'd add, the general notability guideline must also be met; subject-specific guidelines are not trump cards. Where are, e.g., the RS with significant coverage that address the film directly in detail? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are simply wrong. Yes, let's please look at Wikipedia:NOTFILM#Other_evidence_of_notability. The first sentence in the section says, "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits..." The section then enumerates those merits which this film passes. Your interpretation-- yes, interpretation-- creates absurdities such as insignificant English-language films getting their own articles because we have access to newspaper databases, while award-winning Japanese films are deleted. I have worked on Japanese Academy-Award winning films-- and no "titties" or "porn" were involved-- and those articles have less sourcing than this one. Again, your interpretation makes WP:NOFILM entirely useless. This interpretation is incorrect. Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM The film easily passes point 2 of Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability mulitple times: ("The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.") Yumi Yoshiyuki, the film's writer and director, and an actress in the film, is a highly notable filmmaker, and one of the two most important female directors in the history of pink film. Lemon Hanazawa is a multiple award-winning actress. As a Pink Grand Prix winner, this film is significant in their careers, yet details about the film would be inappropriate in their biographies. Hence, deletion of this article would be absolutely wrong for Wikipedia. How many times does the article have to pass WP:NOTFILM before this AfD nomination and the other three inappropriate, POINT-nominations are thrown out? It's obvious Notability is not the issue here. Dekkappai (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I missed noticing this one in the mass deletion effort before but read my rationale and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness, they apply to this film as well. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not going to repeat my arguments another time just because somebody who gets regulary his own sections on ANI started a mass deletion campaign[23] simply based on a massive lack of WP:NPOV as already shown. Testales (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. The Pink Grand Prix is not a "major award", and coming sixth place is not an award win anyway. Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your vote rationale is completely dishonest. Film passes WP:NOTFILM multiple times as noted above. All ten positions, and every other award at the Pink Grand Prix are significant, and are cited as such by Japanese sources. As noted in the article, mainstream Japanese sources refer to the Pink Grand Prix as the "Academy Awards of the Pink Film",[6][7][8] and English Pink film scholar Jasper Sharp calls it the high point of the year for the pink film community.[9] Honestly, Epbr123, you and I have had our differences, but I still expected better of you. Dekkappai (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Awards for Naomi Tani". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-03.
  2. ^ "第2回日本アカデミー賞優秀作品". Japan Academy Prize. Retrieved 2010-05-16. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Awards for Junko Miyashita". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
  4. ^ Sato, Tadao. Currents in Japanese Cinema. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd. ISBN 0-87011-815-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Konuma, Masaru. Interviewed by Weisser, Thomas and Yuko Mihara Weisser. (1998). "An Interview with Masaru Konuma; An exclusive ACC interview with Nikkatsu's most notorious director conducted... in Tokyo on November 6, 1998." in Asian Cult Cinema, #22, 1st Quarter 1999, p.21.
  6. ^ Toda, Miho (2004-04-30). "Infiltrating the "Pink Prize", the Academy Awards of the Pink Film: Not Only Erotic: Physical Sensation Report on the "Hidden Strength" of the Pink Film (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞ともいうべき＜ピンク大賞＞に潜入エロだけじゃないピンク映画の"底力"を体感レポート！ - Pinku eigakai no Akademiisho to moiumeki "Pinku taishō" ni sennyu: Erodakejanai pinku eigo no "sokochikara" wo taikan report!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-12. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ Toda, Miho (2004-05-06). ""Pink Prize": What Should Be Called the Academy Awards of the Pink Film World: Sora Aoi, Yumika Hayashi Among Those Present, Close Coverage of this Yearly Festival (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞というべき"ピンク大賞"蒼井そら、林由美香らが来場する、年に一度の祭典に密着！ - Pinku eigakai no akademii sho to iubeki "Pinku taisho" Aoi Sora, Hayashi Yumikaraga raijosuru, toshi ni ichido no saiten ni mitchaku)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-02-13. Retrieved 2009-08-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ Toda, Miho (2007-05-08). ""Pink" Films Seen with Great Excitement on the Shinbungeiza Theater's Big Screen! The Academy Awards of the R-18 Film "19th Pink Prize" (新文芸坐の大スクリーンで観る"ピンク"な映画に大興奮！ R-18映画のアカデミー賞こと＜第19回ピンク大賞＞は立見続出!!! - Shinbungeiza no dai screen de miru "Pink" na eiga ni daikofun! R-18 eiga no akademiisho koto "Dai 19kai pinku taishō" wa tachikenzokushutsu!!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-01-17. Retrieved 2009-08-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ Sharp, Jasper (2008-12-04). "Pink thrills: Japanese sex movies go global". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2009-01-23. ...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards every April, an all-nighter held at the Shinbungeiza theater in Tokyo's Ikebukuro district that screens the Top 5 of the year as voted for by readers of the fanzine PG. This friendly event attracts an eclectic range of viewers of both genders, from industry figures to hardcore cinephiles and the casually curious.
  • Delete. As others have pointed out, NFILMS is used to show when it is expected that coverage will exist. In this case there is doubt whether NFILMS applies (6th place being called an award win?). As such, we should look in more depth to see whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. These sources do not seem to be available so the article should be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh... but the GNG is not the final and only arbiter of what is or is not notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't normally work in this area, but I saw this an AN/I. There's a key question here: is winning an award, but not the top award, notable? There are at least 3 prominent analogous situations: 1 Nominees for the Academy awards--these are a select number of films, not any film any member happens to nominate--they're essentially finalists, not the plain meaning of nominees. Do we accept this as notability? (though actually, any film here would meet the other pars of the guideline, too, at least for the major categories.).2 The Booker Prize--there are three stages of nomination, a limited number of nominees, a longlist of about 20, and a shortlist of 6. Books making the shortlist will always be notable on other criteria, but I think achieving this can fairly be called a major award. ; even a book making the longlist will usually be notable on other criteria. . 3 Nominees for the Nobel Prize -- this again is a selection--thousands of people can propose candidates, but the 200 or actual ones being considered for the various prizes are selected by a panel. This is usually not used here as a formal criterion, because the official list of nominees is not announced, so there is no RS, just someone saying it on the basis, I presume, of rumor. I assume anyone on it, though, would be considered notable. Now, for this particular award, it seems from the article on the prize that there is an official shortlist of the top 10. By analogy, it would be at least probable notability. It would intrinsically seem reasonable to me that the 10 best films in a major genre like these would be suitable of coverage in an encyclopedia, not just the best one of the year. Not reading Japanese, I assume the statement is correct that the sources do show this is the major award in the subject DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Japan Times article above by Jasper Sharp has the quote, "...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards". He goes into more detail on it in the book. Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Have I not seen this very comment somewhere before? Ah yes, so I have. A cookie-cutter AfD -- how bizarre, when en:WP offers Template:AfD footer (multiple). A modest and adequately sourced article on a film of modest but discernible notability. Nothing problematic here. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles aren't similar enough to warrant Template:AfD footer. It was reasonable to have hoped significant coverage could have been found for at least one of these films during the AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course. That's why i kept it separate. If you do a batch nom you get snark too. As we've seen, no sources have been found for any of them though (just vague assurances that sources will emerge somehow, someday).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this article has no sources, then perhaps the footnotes I see are mere hallucinations. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only source is the fanzine that runs the award show. There are no in depth looks at these movies. There are no reviews. There are no discussions of their importance and impact. There is no coverage -- at all -- outside of the directory listings used to "source" the stubs. (the "refs" on this page may have you confused; they don't discuss this or any of the other movies under discussion at all).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh yes, I know all that. I don't think I am confused. Now, which factual claim within this modest article do you find unsourced or inadequately sourced? -- Hoary (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suspect you already know this as well, but the issue isn't about the accuracy of any factual claims. The issue is whether its reasonable to have 200 unexpandable Pink Film stubs. Epbr123 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • As long as they're neither substubs nor expanded beyond what's sourced, unexpandable stubs seem harmless. -- Hoary (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • They're sourced, they're notable, they're encyclopedic, and they're harmless. During a few years of doing actual work in the subject, I've come to the conclusion that the claim that they any one of these articles is "unexpandable" is false. As a matter of fact, some may have been expanded well enough to run for GA. As an Admin in the "Porn Project", it seems you would be applauding this work rather than attempting to remove it. Oh wait, you did once. ""For your work on Japanese porn articles." Though we might now quibble over the word "porn", I do thank you for that. Dekkappai (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as has been suggested. I'm concerned about the paucity of sources and the notability of the awards. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further evidence of the authority of Hayashida Yoshiyuki-- editor and publisher of P*G, and host of the Pink Grand Prix-- in the area of Pink film. He is the co-author of the books:
    Generation sex : Japanese "pink" movie posters
    女優林由美香 / Joyū Hayashi Yumika on the life of Pink film (and AV) actress Yumika Hayashi. Dekkappai (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For all the heat that's been generated here, a few points remain clear, and mostly undisputed:
    • The only nontrivial claim for notability for the film is its Pink Grand Prix "award". The "award" is conferred as the result of a readers' poll conducted by a fan magazine, itself of no established notability. There is, apparently, no information available as to the size of the circulation of the magazine, the nature of its contents, or the level of participation in the readers' poll. The most reliable indication we have of the numbers involved is that the Grand Prix ceremony, supposedly the annual high point for pink film enthusiasts, is held at the Shinbungeiza theater -- which, according to its website, seats 266. [24] In contrast, a local "alternative" weekly newspaper in my area has a circulation of over 40,000, and it conducts a readers poll every year on subjects including "Best Area Band." After the poll is published, the newspaper stages an outdoor concert featuring the top-polling bands, regularly attended by several thousand people. But, for good reason, this comes nowhere near being an award significant enough to demonstrate notability.
    • The "Pink Grand Prix", we're told repeatedly, is the "Academy Awards" of its genre niche. This analogy just doesn't hold up. For all the varied citations on the point, it turns out to be the opinion of a single writer of no demonstrated expertise, published on a single website. No evidence of genuine significance is provided -- no substantial press coverage, no televised ceremonies, etc, etc. For all of its supposed importance, it is mentioned only twice (perhaps three times) in what is touted as the leading book on the subject, apparently with no substantial discussion. [25]
    • While that book's author, Jasper Sharp, is described as a "scholar" of pink film, that characterization is misleading. Sharp is a pop culture writer, with no reported or self-claimed academic/scholarly credentials.[26] And neither "Pink Grand Prix" nor the equivalent "Pink Taisho" generates any relevant Google Scholar hits.
    • The fact that people who later became notable may have been involved in this particular film is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:NOTFILM requires that a case be made for significance in the context of a person's career. None of the episodes of Whirlybirds or Bonanza or Bus Stop (TV series) directed by Robert Altman are individually notable. (NOTFILM also omits any suggestion that readers polls provide any basis for demonstrating notability.)
  • The overall lack of sourcing to establish notability remains completely unaddressed. Citations to comprehensive databases, even government-operated ones, may establish existence, but not notability (otherwise a listing on the Social Security Death Index or the Delaware registry of corporations would be sufficient to prove notability); and the PG fansite citations lack both independence and significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such POV complaints, WAX arguments, and attempts to denigrate culturally notable awards has been repeatedly and soundly refuted... though with the length of this discussion, perhaps it was overlooked. The GNG is not the final arbiter of notability... specially for films that have their own cultural significance in their own country and for different reasons than a film might here in the United States. Notable in Japan is plenty notable for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's simple really. The Pink film is a highly notable genre in Japanese film, and has been for 50 years. The Pink Grand Prix is the major award in that genre, has been since 1988, and this is all sourced at the article. Fellow Porn Project members who have voted Delete here have created hundreds of less reliably-sourced sub-stubs on less-notable subjects. Hundreds of major award-winners in Japan and Korea are equally or less-reliably sourced. Hundreds more of articles on films in world cinema have less claim to notability. Do we admit this film stub belongs, or do we delete thousands of film articles? And wipe Epbr123's "Best Anal Scene"-winners away with them? Dekkappai (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anal wiping (oh dear!) would itself raise at least one major question. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently proving that Wikipedia IS paper... at least the talk pages and discussions are... if only metaphorically... Dekkappai (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I have new favorite most important article. This one is even of a far bigger importance for the mankind than my old favorite was and will surely help many people who seek for knowledge or need an advice to solve such a difficult problem. So it's only understandable why we need here an extraordinary high threshold of inclusion to match the high standards of relevance which are demonstrated by articles like these. Testales (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As its own notability in Japan has been established despite efforts to denigrate the genre and the genre awards of a Japanese-notable topic, there's no need to compare it to other stubs which have also survived to serve the project. However, this discussion does seem to underscore a sad Anglo-centricism in such considerations, doesn't it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that Wikipedia is not a film database like IMDb, IAFD or the Japanese Cinema Database or a mirror for them, thus when there are only enough RS to create unexpandable stubs such as these and the others cited in other genres or nations, then, yes, one should delete these thousands of substub film database entries until such time as RS with significant coverage ("sources [that] address the subject directly in detail") actually exist to write encyclopedia articles about them. To cite an essay, Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is a mirror article of none of those sites. It assembles information from reliable sourcing and includes from one of those sources proof of notability. Are thousands of substub film articles and articles on other subjects with equal or less sourcing and claim of notability going to be deleted rather than kept to be improved? If so, this runs in contradiction to many of the basic claims Wikipedia makes, not least of which is this well-known one from Jimbo Wales.[27] If this one is, and those are not, then "notability" is being applied to delete sourced, notable material in a selective, subjective and in a biased manner. Dekkappai (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm referring to stubs which can't be improved by expansion because sources don't exist to do so. Jimbo's point on that page, perhaps not so well known if it's not incorporated in a policy, guideline, or essay, seems to be about articles of some length and detail on trivial subjects, and notes we'd react differently to multitudes of one-line articles, if I read him correctly. And that we would delete those one-line substubs should not affect how we treat a lengthy article on the same subject, and I agree with that. I would not argue for the deletion of a lengthy sourced article or an expandable stub on a pink film (or whatever) on the basis of how I would treat an unexpandable stub. He doesn't make reference to the problem of stubs that aren't expandable as opposed to those which are, so this doesn't really speak to the main point I was making. I don't see where the selectivity, subjectivity and bias comes in, since I wrote that all such articles should be deleted regardless of nation or genre. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the crux of your Delete vote, then, is that this article is unexpandable, I would like to see evidence of that. I have worked in this area for a few years, and have expanded several such articles quite substantially. The confirmation of notability-- the award-- is an indication that this film has certainly been covered in Japanese sources. I have found this to be the case in other articles. As with those other cases, some of those sources will be found during the expansion of the article. Based on other Pink Grand Prix-winners, it's highly likely the film will be re-released, possibly even in an English-language edition, and further sourcing will then be created and added. In the meantime, there is no reason that a sourced stub on a notable film should not be allowed to exist here. This is a standard practice at Wikipedia, and there is no reason to make an exception only for these five films. Dekkappai (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm supposed to prove a negative? Hmm. An award is not a guarantee RS with detailed coverage exist, nor in itself a guarantee of notability, only an general indicator that RS may exist, as NFILM says explicitly. It would be easy for it to say "winning an award is an automatic guarantee of notability and an automatic guarantee that RS exist," if that is what was meant, but it does not. Speculation on the future creation of RS isn't good practice; the RS should exist at the time of article creation. I'm not sure this discussion is going to go anywhere. It would be good if someone other than the usual people participated, possibly. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if you state a negative with such certainty, I'd like to see it proven. Again, my experience in the subject tells me sourcing already exists, will be found, and more will come. No, I can't prove this right now. Whether it ever does or not, every piece of information in the article is reliably sourced, there is a sourced proof of notability. There are many stubs on (for example) mainstream Korean and Japanese films which have won their country's top honors. To delete those articles based on application only of GNG would clearly create biased coverage at WP. There is no more reason to remove this article which was awarded at the major ceremony covering its genre. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and a reasonable presumtion that additional sources likely exist, even if only in Japan, should be enough to allow its remaining based upon what has been offered so far toward its notability... unless there is a call being made to change this project to the English-ONLY Wikipedia or United States-ONLY Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems the discussion got stuck, maybe I should place a RFC tag here to generate more input... ;-) Seriously, it's getting ridiculous - why does nobody close it with no consensus as already done with one of these 5? Though a keep might be better and be it only for practical reasons as there is no point to repeat this discussion already in a week or so. Testales (talk) 03:34, 9 August 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.
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wife Taxi: Crowded with Big Tits[edit]

Wife Taxi: Crowded with Big Tits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" "honorable mention" in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." I belive that means that it came in out of the top 10 in this fan poll. There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this article cites mainly the web site P*G Website -- it is not obvious to me that this is a reliable source adequate to verify content or establish notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOTFILM, and has no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [28], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yet another of the fucking horrible spam pages touting obscure Japanese porn spammed onto Wikipedia without oversight by User:Dekkappai. Kill them all. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Let's tone down the invective and allegations a bit and look at the facts instead. The film in question is an example of Japanese softcore pink film. This type of film has played an important part in Japanese film history and has been a factor in Japanese culture and politics. The reference [29] that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz cites above is an article by pink film authority Jasper Sharp and gives a good overview of the role that pink film has played in Japanese culture and its growing popularity internationally. Read the article to get a better understanding of where this particular Wikipedia article and others of its kind come from. Sharp has also written a serious study of pink film Behind the Pink Curtain, 2008, (ISBN 978 1 903254 54 7) and although in the article mentioned above, Sharp does in passing call PG a "fanzine", he is more explicit in his book describing it as a (page 379): "Specialist Japanese magazine on pink films, edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida, established in July 1994." And about the magazine's PG website, which has been brought into question, he has this to say (page 380): "The website of the best magazine on the subject. An invaluable, comprehensive and up-to-date resource on pink movies edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida." Thus, we have a reliable and authoritative source vouching for both PG magazine and the PG website. As for the Pink Grand Prix, Miho Toda in a series of articles [30] [31] [32] for a reliable source, calls them the Pink Film "Academy Awards" (アカデミー賞). As far as the film not being a first prize winner, if the awarding authorities from "the best magazine on the subject" choose to give awards to more than one candidate, we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". That would involve cultural bias, POV and OR to make such decisions. In summary, this is a film which has won a significant award given by a prominent magazine and is described in a reliable source. I know of no connection between PG magazine and the [sic] "porn-marketting machine in japan"; if there is one, a source would be welcomed. Incidentally, pink film has always been produced and distributed by the major film studios in Japan. And profanity, cultural bias, personal attacks and failure to observe "assume good faith" does not further what is supposed to be a rational discussion. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dubious notability with puff derived from fanzine reference source. English title appears to have been made up arbitrarily by the author to boot. --DAJF (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We don't delete articles on notable, significant films based on cultural and moral bias. Comments about "titties" and "porn" show the ignorance and bias going into some of the votes here. The Pink film is a hugely significant part of Japanese cinema, and has been for nearly 50 years. It is, basically, all Japanese independent cinema. To equate it with US/western "porn" is culturally biased and ignorant, and nominating this article based on that bias is tantamount to attempting to censor coverage of Japanese independent cinema. Read the Pink film article for details. Many significant figures in Japanese cinema have worked in this genre. Just one example: Yōjirō Takita, the winner of last year's U.S. Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film started in this genre, made a hugely significant contribution to the genre, and this work is a significant portion of his work. The Pink Grand Prix is currently the main award in the genre. Anglo pink film scholar Jasper Sharp, and mainstream Japanese sources have noted this in several writings cited in the article. All films awarded at this ceremony are notable simply due to this one award. To claim they are not is to make a laughing-stock of Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and encyclopedic coverage. Also, this film was directed by Yutaka Ikejima, written by Kyōko Godai-- a notable writer covered in two English-language books on the pink film-- and distributed by OP Eiga. Read the articles on that director and the studio for some background. Are we to censor this because of the belligerent ignorance of a few Anglo prudes? I strongly suggest that anyone who purports to be interested in creating an encyclopedia which includes Japanese cinema as a subject area, review their !votes. Because I can tell you, your Delete vote is WRONG here. Pink films just like this one, are covered more and more by mainstream English-language texts on Japanese cinema. This is nothing less than an effort to censor an entire genre of Japanese cinema based on the cultural and moral bias of a few Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per comprehensive rationale of Cherryblossom1982, and strongly warn Carrite about personal attacks-comment on the article, not the editor.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few notes on the general significance of pink film This mass-deletion of pink film articles might benefit from a few points on the genre. The biased cultural point of view driving these nominations: "Porn! Delete!" is completely inaccurate. The nearest equivalent in the US would be the grindhouse/drive-in cinema of the '60s and '70s. The difference is that the Japanese ones are often made by notable, accomplished filmmakers and performers. These films are in no way comparable to what Westerners currently think of as porn. Some of these films-- Jasper Sharp says 10%-- which is approximately the number represented at the Pink Grand Prix-- are well-made, significant, artistic films which employ eroticism as only one element. The films can be in any genre-- horror, comedy, thriller, even science fiction. The only requisites to belonging to the genre are budgetary, shooting schedule, and the existence of a minimal amount of nudity. A few notes:
    1. "SM Queen" Naomi Tani was nominated for a Japanese Academy Award for work in pink and Roman Porno.[1][2]
    2. Actress Junko Miyashita was also nominated for Best Actress at the (mainstream) Japanese Academy Award for a performance in a Roman Porno. She won at other mainstream film awards.[3]
    3. Noted (mainstream) Japanese film critic Tadao Sato calls pink film director Kōji Wakamatsu, one of "Japan's leading directors of the 1960s." [4]
    4. (US) Academy Award-winner, Yōjirō Takita, has such pink films in his filmography as: High Noon Ripper (1984), Molester's Train: Please Continue (1982), Molester's Train: Hunting In A Full Crowd (1982), Molester's Train: Rumiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Keiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Momoe's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Underwear Inspection (1984), Molester's Train: Blast Off (1984), Molester's Train: Best Kept Secret Live Act (1984), Molester's Train: Seiko's Tush (1985), Molester's Train: One Shot Per Train (1985), Molester's Train: 1 Centimeter From The Wall (1985), Molester And The Female Teacher (1984), Molester's School Infirmary (1984), Molester's Tour Bus (1985), Molester's Delivery Service (1986), Pink Physical Examination (1985), Serial Rape'' (1983), etc., etc., etc. Is Wikipedia going to join the ranks of the vilest of human endeavors by censoring the work of this master of cinema because his early works unashamedly display "titties" and "porn"?
    5. From November 1971 until 1988, Nikkatsu studio, Japan's oldest major film studio, made almost nothing but "Roman porno" films. (Director Masaru Konuma says that there was essentially no difference between Roman Porno and pink films except for the studio's higher budget.)[5]
    6. Kinema Jumpo, one of the major Japanese cinema journals, lists several Roman porno/pink films on its list of the 200 best Japanese films of the 20th century. Included on the list are such Roman pornos as : Crazy Fruit (狂った果実 - 1981), Love Hotel (ラブホテル - 1985), Rape! 13th Hour (レイプ25時　暴姦 - 1977), Angel Guts: Red Porno (天使のはらわた　赤い淫画 - 1981)[33]... For an Anglo-centric Wikipedia editor to dismiss films of the genre as "titties" and "porn" is a reflection on the educational background and the limited world-view of that editor, not of these films' place in world cinema. Wikipedia should realistically cover world cinema, not reflect the bias of individual editors. Dekkappai (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasoned comments above. Notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. A slightly WP:WAX sidebar: There are certain revered religious carvings on temples in India that would make many folks in the States blush. Are we to then use Wstern bias and judge such as "porn" and act to denigrate or declare such as unnotable? Hardly. I accept that Western POV should not negatively color discussion of Eastern art or Eastern culture, as cultural standards greatly vary. Perhaps someone from WP:CSB might wish to join in here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That the P*G website is reliable has been established above to my comfort, as is that the award is notable in the genre. By any reasonable measure of notability, that signals it's notable to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pink film is notable, many specific pink films are notable, I accept the award as apparently notable, and I appreciate that there are articles on them. I'd like to see more thorough coverage of pornography on Wikipedia. This specific film is not WP-notable, however. The film is lacking the sort of significant coverage from Reliable sources and consequent verifiability one would want for an encyclopedia article. Instead of prose following the topics in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) there are bare statements of fact as to having gotten the award, the cast, crew, and a brief plot outline, essentially WP:PLOTONLY apart from a short lede. If that's all that can be written, then that's a problem. Merely winning an award is not a guarantee a film is notable by WP's standards Wikipedia:Notability (films), only a general indicator it might be if there are RS for things other than the mere fact of winning the award. It's the existence of RS treating the film as the subject at length that is the measure of WP-notability. This film could be better treated in a list of films that won the award, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Winning a notable award is proof of notability both in the real world and at Wikipedia. Notable subjects in foreign languages/cultures/different time periods are more difficult to source. That is the purpose of subject-specific "notability" definitions, not to create further "notability" hurdles. The assertion of notability, and the proof of its notability are in the article. "bare statements of fact" is encyclopedic style. I could embellish, and then I'd be accused of "fan" writing. Working in this genre for several years, I know that sourcing is out there on films with this much notability, and will be added to this article. This is a completely appropriate stub on a notable film. Deleting an article of this much notability while retaining hundreds of English-language films of much less notability is practically the definition of systemic bias. It is bad for Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the most important false statement in the nomination, and in some Delete votes, is that this film does not pass WP:NOTFILM. It most certainly does pass per Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles, "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." This is noted, "This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion." (First criterion: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") This note, in my experience, is correct, as I have stated above. As indicated by this notable award, these films are covered by reviews and secondary sources, but because of the barriers of language, Japanese sourcing availability, and distance, these sources are found more slowly than are their English equivalents. Also, these films are distributed nationally through OP Eiga, 50 years history as perhaps the major pink film studio. This latter fact further passes [34]], "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." OP is a major studio, and the award is proof beyond its "merely having been produced". There is no valid reason to delete this article. Dekkappai (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context from WP:NOTFILM: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: [...] The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." It is not "false" to say this film fails NOTFILM; it fails because it is one of those exceptions where a film won an award but RS do not exist. As I stated above, an award is an attribute that generally indicates that RS may exist for a film, an award is not a proof in and of itself of Notability. There must be RS for things other than the fact the film exists and won an award. NOTFILM doesn't mean one can speculate such sources exist or speculate that they will be created in the future if a film won an award, it's only thought to be likely that they may exist, and one must actually have the sources in hand ideally at the time of article creation, but if not then, now. They should not be a challenge to find if it is notable. Find them and I'd be quite happy to change my recommendation. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrectly interpreting WP:NOTFILM. Your claim that all films must ALSO pass GNG makes WP:NOTFILM entirely useless. Actually, the award, and the other ways that the film pass NOTFILM are proof that the film is notable. Reliable sources do exist but because of cultural, linguistic, and other matters we have not yet located those sources. The sources we DO have could not possibly be MORE reliable-- the leading journal covering the genre, and production information from the Ministry of Education. Subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NOTFILM help to prevent biased coverage by users who incorrectly assume that sourcing for all subjects is equally available-- not to create a redundant check-- "OK, we got all the sources we need to write a Feature Article, now let's see if it passes WP:NOTFILM." No. This is a notable film. More sources exist. A well-sourced stub with proof of the film's notability is sufficient until those further sources are found. Dekkappai (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM The film easily passes point 2 of Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability mulitple times: ("The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.") Yutaka Ikejima, the film's director, and Kyōko Godai, the film's writer are highly notable filmmakers in the pink film genre. Actress Lemon Hanazawa is a multiple award-winner. As a Pink Grand Prix winner, this film is significant in their careers, yet details about the film would be inappropriate in their biographies. Hence, deletion of this article would be absolutely wrong for Wikipedia. How many times does the article have to pass WP:NOTFILM before this AfD nomination and the other three inappropriate, POINT-nominations are thrown out? It's obvious Notability is not the issue here. Dekkappai (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What right do we have to declare an award in a notable Japanese award ceremony as unimportant? There are over 20 Oscar category awards and even getting nominated for just one estabilishes a certain notabililty. So how would we as non experts tell that a place 8 award in Japan lacks relevance? At least I have not seen any prove for this here. I am also impressed of the deep knowledge that Dekkappai and Cherryblossom1982 have in that field, so there is nothing to add to their comphrehensive explanations which even for an (open) western eye should make the inclusion of this article plausible. Both main editors are hardworking experts and would be loss for Wikipedia when stopping their contributions. Furthermore the nominator lacks obviously and without any doubt WP:NPOV in this area which even goes to name-calling of involved editors[35][36][37]. Testales (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did he discuss this film? If not, hardly seems relevant.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the expert was interviewd by a news organization in regards the magazine he founded does seem to be paricularly relevent... in showing suitable expertise and credibility for the magazine he founded... a magazine that DOES cover this film. Or is the fact that this is all in Japanese that you find irrelevent to en.Wikipedia? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Awards for Naomi Tani". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-03.
  2. ^ "第2回日本アカデミー賞優秀作品". Japan Academy Prize. Retrieved 2010-05-16. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Awards for Junko Miyashita". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
  4. ^ Sato, Tadao. Currents in Japanese Cinema. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd. ISBN 0-87011-815-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Konuma, Masaru. Interviewed by Weisser, Thomas and Yuko Mihara Weisser. (1998). "An Interview with Masaru Konuma; An exclusive ACC interview with Nikkatsu's most notorious director conducted... in Tokyo on November 6, 1998." in Asian Cult Cinema, #22, 1st Quarter 1999, p.21.
  • Keep according to my detailed argument above for "Older Officer Lady It would intrinsically seem reasonable to me that the 10 best films in a major genre like these would be suitable of coverage in an encyclopedia, not just the best one of the year. Not reading Japanese, I assume the statement is correct that the sources do show this is the major award in the subject DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as has been suggested. I'm concerned about the paucity of sources and the notability of the awards. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's been mentioned that besides being named among the Top Ten, the film also has a performance which won a Best Acting award: Kōji Makimura. Dekkappai (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, and fails WP:NOTFILM as the film itself hasn't won an award. The argument that the film passes WP:NOTFILM due to being "widely distributed by a major film studio in a country that is not a major film producing country" is Wikilawyering, applying the letter of the guideline rather than its spirit. The guideline clearly doesn't intend to mean that every film distributed by a major Japanese porn studio is notable. Epbr123 (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Epbr, I am honestly trying to restrain what would be considered "personal attack" here, but you are being dishonest in your arguments to Delete these films. There is simply no other way to put it. You support the "Award" criteria at PORNBIO, and you create countless stubs (Eric Swiss, Aletta Ocean, Anthony Crane, Eric Masterson (pornographic actor), etc.) on truly hardcore subjects which are propped up with awards like "Best Anal Scene", and no significant sourcing. Yet you vote to delete films in a softcore genre which has produced some very highly-regarded, well-made films. Again: These films easily pass WP:NOTFILM on several points. They have all been awarded-- note the people accepting awards on stage at the Pink Grand Prix in the secondary sourcing on the awards -- as among the top ten releases in their genre for the year. The Pink Grand Prix is a notable award and is the major award in the genre, as shown by reliable sourcing, in both English and Japanese, both at the article and in these discussions. This film has notable personnel (Yutaka Ikejima and Lemon Hanazawa) and a notable studio (OP Eiga) behind it. As an award winner it is a significant part of their career, but details on the film's release would be inappropriate in those articles. Hence a stand-alone article is needed. Dekkappai (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently people are not looking at the Pink Grand Prix article and are therefore claiming the award is sourced only on primary sourcing. This is not true, and further secondary sourcing is easily found. For the 2004 award ceremony, which names this film as having been awarded, see: Toda, Miho (2004-04-30). "Infiltrating the "Pink Prize", the Academy Awards of the Pink Film: Not Only Erotic: Physical Sensation Report on the "Hidden Strength" of the Pink Film (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞ともいうべき＜ピンク大賞＞に潜入エロだけじゃないピンク映画の"底力"を体感レポート！ - Pinku eigakai no Akademiisho to moiumeki "Pinku taishō" ni sennyu: Erodakejanai pinku eigo no "sokochikara" wo taikan report!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-12. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help). Dekkappai (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further evidence of the authority of Hayashida Yoshiyuki-- editor and publisher of P*G, and host of the Pink Grand Prix-- in the area of Pink film. He is the co-author of the books:
    Generation sex : Japanese "pink" movie posters
    女優林由美香 / Joyū Hayashi Yumika on the life of Pink film (and AV) actress Yumika Hayashi Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For all the heat that's been generated here, a few points remain clear, and mostly undisputed:
    • The only nontrivial claim for notability for the film is its Pink Grand Prix "award". The "award" is conferred as the result of a readers' poll conducted by a fan magazine, itself of no established notability. There is, apparently, no information available as to the size of the circulation of the magazine, the nature of its contents, or the level of participation in the readers' poll. The most reliable indication we have of the numbers involved is that the Grand Prix ceremony, supposedly the annual high point for pink film enthusiasts, is held at the Shinbungeiza theater -- which, according to its website, seats 266. [38] In contrast, a local "alternative" weekly newspaper in my area has a circulation of over 40,000, and it conducts a readers poll every year on subjects including "Best Area Band." After the poll is published, the newspaper stages an outdoor concert featuring the top-polling bands, regularly attended by several thousand people. But, for good reason, this comes nowhere near being an award significant enough to demonstrate notability.
    • The "Pink Grand Prix", we're told repeatedly, is the "Academy Awards" of its genre niche. This analogy just doesn't hold up. For all the varied citations on the point, it turns out to be the opinion of a single writer of no demonstrated expertise, published on a single website. No evidence of genuine significance is provided -- no substantial press coverage, no televised ceremonies, etc, etc. For all of its supposed importance, it is mentioned only twice (perhaps three times) in what is touted as the leading book on the subject, apparently with no substantial discussion. [39]
    • While that book's author, Jasper Sharp, is described as a "scholar" of pink film, that characterization is misleading. Sharp is a pop culture writer, with no reported or self-claimed academic/scholarly credentials.[40] And neither "Pink Grand Prix" nor the equivalent "Pink Taisho" generates any relevant Google Scholar hits.
    • The fact that people who later became notable may have been involved in this particular film is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:NOTFILM requires that a case be made for significance in the context of a person's career. None of the episodes of Whirlybirds or Bonanza or Bus Stop (TV series) directed by Robert Altman are individually notable. (NOTFILM also omits any suggestion that readers polls provide any basis for demonstrating notability.)
  • The overall lack of sourcing to establish notability remains completely unaddressed. Citations to comprehensive databases, even government-operated ones, may establish existence, but not notability (otherwise a listing on the Social Security Death Index or the Delaware registry of corporations would be sufficient to prove notability); and the PG fansite citations lack both independence and significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just pure coincidence or well calculated timing that you throw in a new big comment now where the AfDs get closed and the first one even already has been closed as with "no consensus"? Some of your points may indeed have contributed to the discussion here while others appear to be rather questionable. So for example you claim that the analogy of the Grand Prix Award to the Academy Awards is not adequate right after you have compared the size of the theater where the ceremony is hold to the circulation of a news paper. So how big has the ceremony place to be to establish notability? Anyway, a no-consensus is what it finally looks like indeed. Furthermore I wonder if it really serves the idea of Wikipedia to create verbose deletion discussions about actually harmless articles which exceed the articles' possible maximum size by far. Testales (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, such POV complaints, WAX arguments, and attempts to denigrate culturally notable awards has been repeatedly and soundly refuted... though with the length of this discussion, perhaps it was overlooked. The GNG is not the final arbiter of notability... specially for films that have their own cultural significance in their own country and for different reasons than a film might here in the United States. Notable in Japan is plenty notable for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's simple really. The Pink film is a highly notable genre in Japanese film, and has been for 50 years. The Pink Grand Prix is the major award in that genre, has been since 1988, and this is all sourced at the article. Fellow Porn Project members who have voted Delete here have created hundreds of less reliably-sourced sub-stubs on less-notable subjects. Hundreds of major award-winners in Japan and Korea are equally or less-reliably sourced. Hundreds more of articles on films in world cinema have less claim to notability. Do we admit this film stub belongs, or do we delete thousands of film articles? Dekkappai (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As its own notability in Japan has been established despite efforts to denigrate the genre and the genre awards of a Japanese-notable topic, there's no need to compare it to other stubs which have also survived to serve the project. However, this discussion does seem to underscore a sad Anglo-centricism in such considerations, doesn't it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:17, 8 August 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Mitrikeski[edit]

Antonio Mitrikeski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure if these awards indicate more than local notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No references (BLP PROD, anyone?), and a search turns up little usable or useful information. What fame he has seems to be very localized. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 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.
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. One of the two keep !voters argues that this shuld be kept under IAR, if nothing else. I don't find that a reason to keep this article, and consensus is that it fails several other policies. Courcelles 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model and marque oddities[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of automobile model and marque oddities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion a couple of times in 2006, but there are still serious issues here. The list lacks well-defined criteria, what is "oddity" supposed to mean? The article is unsourced, and has been unsourced for four years. The entire article seems to be a list of trivia which lacks focus. Without any sourcing, it is likely original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I remember voting to keep this in the first 2006 discussion (gosh, almost four years ago to the day), but to be honest the nominator is right in saying that it hasn't really improved; is just an uncited collection of trivia and coincidences. Shame really, as it's quite interesting in places. As before, my only other suggestion would be to split the article into more managable, verifiable sections (I can imagine an article on "List of racing homologation specials" being quite useful, for example). Bob talk 13:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete as a collection of trivia and bland statements of the obvious ("It is common for a previous special model (especially a convertible or other low-volume style) to continue in production even after the rest of the line has been converted to a new platform"). Does it have an encyclopedic value of it's own? East of Borschov 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you delete this article, it is way hard to improve it anyway. If the content is verifiable keep it. The list based articles doesn't need references, since the wikilinks has references themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs)
  • Notify related wiki projects and page contributors I also suggest the nominator to exclusively notify related automobile channels and page contributors about AFD, since their expert views are much more important for the article. Kasaalan (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a list comprised entirely of trivia, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. There's also a foul smell of original research permeating throughout the list and it's inclusion criteria are poorly defined. What qualifies an "oddity"? All this points to a major violation of WP:LISTCRUFT. Tavix |  Talk  16:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its apparently a compilation of material from the various specific pages, and useful as a summary. But our standards for this type of have improved & exact sources are needed. A useful compilation, and probably worth keeping ,even if IAR is the necessary argument DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 5 August 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.
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie[edit]

Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" eight place in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." That's called coming in eighth, not "winning." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM, Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Porn is swell. Topless chicks are swell. Wikipedia articles about obscure porn movies which purportedly have won dubious awards are not swell. Not worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this article cites mainly the web site P*G Website -- it is not obvious to me that this is a reliable source adequate to verify content or establish notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As Cherryblossom1982 points out, Jasper Sharp, leading English authority on Pink film, states that P*G is not just a reliable source on the genre, but the most important journal covering the subject. There is no question of its reliability in the pink film genre. Dekkappai (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOTFILM, and has no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [41], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Let's tone down the invective and allegations a bit and look at the facts instead. The film in question is an example of Japanese softcore pink film. This type of film has played an important part in Japanese film history and has been a factor in Japanese culture and politics. The reference [42] that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz cites above is an article by pink film authority Jasper Sharp and gives a good overview of the role that pink film has played in Japanese culture and its growing popularity internationally. Read the article to get a better understanding of where this particular Wikipedia article and others of its kind come from. Sharp has also written a serious study of pink film Behind the Pink Curtain, 2008, (ISBN 978 1 903254 54 7) and although in the article mentioned above, Sharp does in passing call PG a "fanzine", he is more explicit in his book describing it as a (page 379): "Specialist Japanese magazine on pink films, edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida, established in July 1994." And about the magazine's PG website, which has been brought into question, he has this to say (page 380): "The website of the best magazine on the subject. An invaluable, comprehensive and up-to-date resource on pink movies edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida." Thus, we have a reliable and authoritative source vouching for both PG magazine and the PG website. As for the Pink Grand Prix, Miho Toda in a series of articles [43] [44] [45] for a reliable source, calls them the Pink Film "Academy Awards" (アカデミー賞). As far as the film not being a first prize winner, if the awarding authorities from "the best magazine on the subject" choose to give awards to more than one candidate, we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". That would involve cultural bias, POV and OR to make such decisions. In summary, this is a film which has won a significant award given by a prominent magazine and is described in a reliable source. I know of no connection between PG magazine and the [sic] "porn-marketting machine in japan"; if there is one, a source would be welcomed. Incidentally, pink film has always been produced and distributed by the major film studios in Japan. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WHere is the extensive coverage on this film that demonstrates notability? It didn't win an award (again, eighth isn't "winning"), leaving aside the question of the value/notability of the PG magazine fan poll.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". Actually that's exactly what we have done. See for example "a well-known and significant award or honor" or "a major award for excellence". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dubious notability. English title appears to have been made up arbitrarily by the author to boot. --DAJF (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We don't delete articles on notable, significant films based on cultural and moral bias. Comments about "titties" and "porn" show the ignorance and bias going into some of the votes here. The Pink film is a hugely significant part of Japanese cinema, and has been for nearly 50 years. It is, basically, all Japanese independent cinema. To equate it with US/western "porn" is culturally biased and ignorant, and nominating this article based on that bias is tantamount to attempting to censor coverage of Japanese independent cinema. Read the Pink film article for details. Many significant figures in Japanese cinema have worked in this genre. Just one example: Yōjirō Takita, the winner of last year's U.S. Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film started in this genre, made a hugely significant contribution to the genre, and this work is a significant portion of his work. The Pink Grand Prix is currently the main award in the genre. Anglo pink film scholar Jasper Sharp, and mainstream Japanese sources have noted this in several writings cited in the article. All films awarded at this ceremony are notable simply due to this one award. To claim they are not is to make a laughing-stock of Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and encyclopedic coverage. Coming in eighth in a genre which produces over 100 theatrical films a year is significant-- more so than hundreds of comparable English-language films. Also, this film was directed by Yutaka Ikejima, written by Kyōko Godai-- a notable writer covered in two English-language books on the pink film-- and distributed by OP Eiga. Read the articles on that director and the studio for some background. Are we to censor this because of the belligerent ignorance of a few Anglo prudes? I strongly suggest that anyone who purports to be interested in creating an encyclopedia which includes Japanese cinema as a subject area, review their !votes. Because I can tell you, your Delete vote is WRONG here. Pink films just like this one, are covered more and more by mainstream English-language texts on Japanese cinema. This is nothing less than an effort to censor an entire genre of Japanese cinema based on the cultural and moral bias of a few Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultural and moral bias?" No. There is no substantial coverage -- anywhere -- of thse individual films. Your bullet points up above, for instance, have nothing to do with this film. Where are the sources that examine the cultural signficance, the impact, the reviews, etc... of this film? Also -- tone down the rhetoric (i.e. calling me a liar below).Bali ultimate (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also Among the many completely incorrect statements in the nomination, "the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan" stands out as particularly grossly dishonest. Dekkappai (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per comprehensive rationales of Cherryblossom1982 and Dekkappai, wow this is a fun crusade.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few notes on the general significance of pink film This mass-deletion of pink film articles might benefit from a few points on the genre. The biased cultural point of view driving these nominations: "Porn! Delete!" is completely inaccurate. The nearest equivalent in the US would be the grindhouse/drive-in cinema of the '60s and '70s. The difference is that the Japanese ones are often made by notable, accomplished filmmakers and performers. These films are in no way comparable to what Westerners currently think of as porn. Some of these films-- Jasper Sharp says 10%-- which is approximately the number represented at the Pink Grand Prix-- are well-made, significant, artistic films which employ eroticism as only one element. The films can be in any genre-- horror, comedy, thriller, even science fiction. The only requisites to belonging to the genre are budgetary, shooting schedule, and the existence of a minimal amount of nudity. A few notes:
    1. "SM Queen" Naomi Tani was nominated for a Japanese Academy Award for work in pink and Roman Porno.[1][2]
    2. Actress Junko Miyashita was also nominated for Best Actress at the (mainstream) Japanese Academy Award for a performance in a Roman Porno. She won at other mainstream film awards.[3]
    3. Noted (mainstream) Japanese film critic Tadao Sato calls pink film director Kōji Wakamatsu, one of "Japan's leading directors of the 1960s." [4]
    4. (US) Academy Award-winner, Yōjirō Takita, has such pink films in his filmography as: High Noon Ripper (1984), Molester's Train: Please Continue (1982), Molester's Train: Hunting In A Full Crowd (1982), Molester's Train: Rumiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Keiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Momoe's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Underwear Inspection (1984), Molester's Train: Blast Off (1984), Molester's Train: Best Kept Secret Live Act (1984), Molester's Train: Seiko's Tush (1985), Molester's Train: One Shot Per Train (1985), Molester's Train: 1 Centimeter From The Wall (1985), Molester And The Female Teacher (1984), Molester's School Infirmary (1984), Molester's Tour Bus (1985), Molester's Delivery Service (1986), Pink Physical Examination (1985), Serial Rape'' (1983), etc., etc., etc. Is Wikipedia going to join the ranks of the vilest of human endeavors by censoring the work of this master of cinema because his early works unashamedly display "titties" and "porn"?
    5. From November 1971 until 1988, Nikkatsu studio, Japan's oldest major film studio, made almost nothing but "Roman porno" films. (Director Masaru Konuma says that there was essentially no difference between Roman Porno and pink films except for the studio's higher budget.)[5]
    6. Kinema Jumpo, one of the major Japanese cinema journals, lists several Roman porno/pink films on its list of the 200 best Japanese films of the 20th century. Included on the list are such Roman pornos as : Crazy Fruit (狂った果実 - 1981), Love Hotel (ラブホテル - 1985), Rape! 13th Hour (レイプ25時　暴姦 - 1977), Angel Guts: Red Porno (天使のはらわた　赤い淫画 - 1981)[46]... For an Anglo-centric Wikipedia editor to dismiss films of the genre as "titties" and "porn" is a reflection on the educational background and the limited world-view of that editor, not of these films' place in world cinema. Wikipedia should realistically cover world cinema, not reflect the bias of individual editors. Dekkappai (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the reasoned comments above that avoided rhetoric and antipathy, as notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Western (or personal) POV should never be used to negatively color discussion of Eastern film, Eastern art, or Eastern culture, as cultural standards greatly vary. Calling something from another country "obscure" is a bit much, as WP:UNKNOWNHERE is not a criteria for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it may be worth noting that neither this article nor any of the other pink film articles up for deletion are considered noteworthy enough by Japanese natives to have Wikipedia articles yet, so "Anglocentric" or "cultural bias" arguments are a bit flimsy. --DAJF (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are certainly free to deny the existance of cultural pov if you wish, but WP:UNKNOWNHERE is still no valid reason to delete. Through reading the offerings above I determine that their is some quite negative rhetoric being used in a few comments that is reflective of pov... if not cultural, then personal... but pov nonetheless. It also worth noting that en.Wikipedia has nearly five times the number of articles as does the ja.Wikipedia, and a topic not (yet) being in another Wikipedia does not imply nor impune notability. It is the existing notability of a topic, no matter what the topic is, that allows consideration of articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • JA-Wiki has far fewer editors, and none, that I am aware of, who are currently specializing in pink cinema. (Note, however, that they have 2,850 articles on Japanese adult video performers, so we have a long way to catch up there. Or are we, rather, supposed to delete every article on which they have not started an article yet?) They do have articles on comparable pink films (地獄のローパー、緊縛・SM・18才 / S&M Hunter for one), and the film under discussion here (奪う女 中出しの誘惑 / Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie) is listed in the filmographies of Rina Yūki and Eri Akira. So it is entirely probable that this film will eventually have an article started at JA-Wiki. Dekkappai (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pink film is notable, many specific pink films are notable, I accept the award as apparently notable, and I appreciate that there are articles on them. I'd like to see more thorough coverage of pornography on Wikipedia. This specific film is not WP-notable, however. The film is lacking the sort of significant coverage from Reliable sources and consequent verifiability one would want for an encyclopedia article. Instead of prose following the topics in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) there are bare statements of fact as to having gotten the award, the cast, crew, and a brief plot outline, essentially WP:PLOTONLY apart from a short lede. If that's all that can be written, then that's a problem. Merely winning an award is not a guarantee a film is notable by WP's standards Wikipedia:Notability (films), only a general indicator it might be if there are RS for things other than the mere fact of winning the award. It's the existence of RS treating the film as the subject at length that is the measure of WP-notability. This film could be better treated in a list of films that won the award, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Winning a notable award is proof of notability both in the real world and at Wikipedia. Notable subjects in foreign languages/cultures/different time periods are more difficult to source. That is the purpose of subject-specific "notability" definitions, not to create further "notability" hurdles. The assertion of notability, and the proof of its notability are in the article. "bare statements of fact" is encyclopedic style. I could embellish, and then I'd be accused of "fan" writing. Working in this genre for several years, I know that sourcing is out there on films with this much notability, and will be added to this article. This is a completely appropriate stub on a notable film. Deleting an article of this much notability while retaining hundreds of English-language films of much less notability is practically the definition of systemic bias. It is bad for Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the most important false statement in the nomination, and in some Delete votes, is that this film does not pass WP:NOTFILM. It most certainly does pass per Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles, "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." This is noted, "This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion." (First criterion: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") This note, in my experience, is correct, as I have stated above. As indicated by this notable award, these films are covered by reviews and secondary sources, but because of the barriers of language, Japanese sourcing availability, and distance, these sources are found more slowly than are their English equivalents. Also, these films are distributed nationally through OP Eiga, 50 years history as perhaps the major pink film studio. This latter fact further passes [47]], "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." OP is a major studio, and the award is proof beyond its "merely having been produced". There is no valid reason to delete this article. Dekkappai (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context from WP:NOTFILM: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: [...] The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." It is not "false" to say this film fails NOTFILM; it fails because it is one of those exceptions where a film won an award but RS do not exist. As I stated above, an award is an attribute that generally indicates that RS may exist for a film, an award is not a proof in and of itself of Notability. There must be RS for things other than the fact the film exists and won an award. NOTFILM doesn't mean one can speculate such sources exist or speculate that they will be created in the future if a film won an award, it's only thought to be likely that they may exist, and one must actually have the sources in hand ideally at the time of article creation, but if not then, now. They should not be a challenge to find if it is notable. Find them and I'd be quite happy to change my recommendation. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrectly interpreting WP:NOTFILM. Your claim that all films must ALSO pass GNG makes WP:NOTFILM entirely useless. "OK, we got all the sources we need to write a Feature Article, now let's see if it passes WP:NOTFILM." No. Actually, the award, and the other ways that the film pass NOTFILM are proof that the film is notable. Reliable sources do exist but because of cultural, linguistic, and other matters we have not yet located those sources. The sources we DO have could not possibly be MORE reliable-- the leading journal covering the genre, and production information from the Ministry of Education. Subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NOTFILM help to prevent biased coverage by users who incorrectly assume that sourcing for all subjects is equally available-- not to create a redundant check. This is a notable film. More sources exist. A well-sourced stub with proof of the film's notability is sufficient until those further sources are found. Dekkappai (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM The film easily passes point 2 of Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability mulitple times: ("The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.") Yutaka Ikejima, the film's director, and Kyōko Godai, the film's writer are highly notable filmmakers in the pink film genre. As a Pink Grand Prix winner, this film is significant in their careers, yet details about the film would be inappropriate in their biographies. Hence, deletion of this article would be absolutely wrong for Wikipedia. How many times does the article have to pass WP:NOTFILM before this AfD nomination and the other three inappropriate, POINT-nominations are thrown out? It's obvious Notability is not the issue here. Dekkappai (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What right do we have to declare an award in a notable Japanese award ceremony as unimportant? There are over 20 Oscar category awards and even getting nominated for just one estabilishes a certain notabililty. So how would we as non experts tell that a place 6 award in Japan lacks relevance? At least I have not seen any prove for this here. I am also impressed of the deep knowledge that Dekkappai and Cherryblossom1982 have in that field, so there is nothing to add to their comphrehensive explanations which even for an (open) western eye should make the inclusion of this article plausible. Both main editors are hardworking experts and would be loss for Wikipedia when stopping their contributions. Furthermore the nominator lacks obviously and without any doubt WP:NPOV in this area which even goes to name-calling of involved editors[48][49][50]. Testales (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. The Pink Grand Prix is not a "major award", and coming eighth place is not an award win anyway. Epbr123 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your vote rationale is completely dishonest. Film passes WP:NOTFILM multiple times as noted above. All ten positions, and every other award at the Pink Grand Prix are significant, and are cited as such by Japanese sources. As noted in the article, mainstream Japanese sources refer to the Pink Grand Prix as the "Academy Awards of the Pink Film",[6][7][8] and English Pink film scholar Jasper Sharp calls it the high point of the year for the pink film community.[9] Honestly, Epbr123, you and I have had our differences, but I still expected better of you. Dekkappai (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Awards for Naomi Tani". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-03.
  2. ^ "第2回日本アカデミー賞優秀作品". Japan Academy Prize. Retrieved 2010-05-16. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Awards for Junko Miyashita". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
  4. ^ Sato, Tadao. Currents in Japanese Cinema. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd. ISBN 0-87011-815-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Konuma, Masaru. Interviewed by Weisser, Thomas and Yuko Mihara Weisser. (1998). "An Interview with Masaru Konuma; An exclusive ACC interview with Nikkatsu's most notorious director conducted... in Tokyo on November 6, 1998." in Asian Cult Cinema, #22, 1st Quarter 1999, p.21.
  6. ^ Toda, Miho (2004-04-30). "Infiltrating the "Pink Prize", the Academy Awards of the Pink Film: Not Only Erotic: Physical Sensation Report on the "Hidden Strength" of the Pink Film (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞ともいうべき＜ピンク大賞＞に潜入エロだけじゃないピンク映画の"底力"を体感レポート！ - Pinku eigakai no Akademiisho to moiumeki "Pinku taishō" ni sennyu: Erodakejanai pinku eigo no "sokochikara" wo taikan report!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-12. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ Toda, Miho (2004-05-06). ""Pink Prize": What Should Be Called the Academy Awards of the Pink Film World: Sora Aoi, Yumika Hayashi Among Those Present, Close Coverage of this Yearly Festival (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞というべき"ピンク大賞"蒼井そら、林由美香らが来場する、年に一度の祭典に密着！ - Pinku eigakai no akademii sho to iubeki "Pinku taisho" Aoi Sora, Hayashi Yumikaraga raijosuru, toshi ni ichido no saiten ni mitchaku)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-02-13. Retrieved 2009-08-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ Toda, Miho (2007-05-08). ""Pink" Films Seen with Great Excitement on the Shinbungeiza Theater's Big Screen! The Academy Awards of the R-18 Film "19th Pink Prize" (新文芸坐の大スクリーンで観る"ピンク"な映画に大興奮！ R-18映画のアカデミー賞こと＜第19回ピンク大賞＞は立見続出!!! - Shinbungeiza no dai screen de miru "Pink" na eiga ni daikofun! R-18 eiga no akademiisho koto "Dai 19kai pinku taishō" wa tachikenzokushutsu!!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-01-17. Retrieved 2009-08-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ Sharp, Jasper (2008-12-04). "Pink thrills: Japanese sex movies go global". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2009-01-23. ...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards every April, an all-nighter held at the Shinbungeiza theater in Tokyo's Ikebukuro district that screens the Top 5 of the year as voted for by readers of the fanzine PG. This friendly event attracts an eclectic range of viewers of both genders, from industry figures to hardcore cinephiles and the casually curious.
  • Delete. As others have pointed out, NFILMS is used to show when it is expected that coverage will exist. In this case there is doubt whether NFILMS applies (8th place being called an award win?). As such, we should look in more depth to see whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. These sources do not seem to be available so the article should be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Anyone who has worked on subjects on Japanese popular culture knows that Japanese sourcing is notoriously lacking on the Internet. The little that comes available is usually quickly removed and blocked from archives. As a film released nationally by a major studio, with notable personnel and having been awarded in its genre, this film certainly has coverage which meets GNG. That is the point of making these additional criteria-- to prevent biased coverage by forcing subjects in all languages to adhere to a criterion set up with the English-speaking world in mind. If this article is deleted, I have dozens of other articles on Korean- and Japanese-language films which have won major national awards-- the equivalent of our Academy Awards. Since the exact same situation applies to these films, they will need to be deleted, and I will remove them to a project which is genuinely interested in a non-biased, uncensored coverage of world cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There either are sources or there aren't. If no one has found sources -- online, in a library, in a book, somewhere -- then, well, we don't have sources. 8th place in the Pink Grand Prix fan poll by the way is not the equivalent of winning an academy award in japan. That would be winning the Japan Academy Prize (film). No one is arguing for the deletion of articles on any winners of Japan's biggest film prize (or Korea's, or any other country's). Hundreds of stubs on porn films that didn't win any award (let alone the "Japanese Academy Award") are another matter.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. These films have been awarded by the major ceremony in their genre. All awards in the ceremony are confirmations of notability. Major studios and personnel were involved in their making. If WP:GNG invalidates this, it equally invalidates the articles on other films which only have awards and notable personnel to justify their existence here but no immediately available "significant" coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it came in eighth place in its little genre ghetto. Wide notice, attention, acclaim, fame, infamy? No evidence of any, anywhere. That's where you and i differ.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a genre which regularly sees over 100 releases, it was named 8th Best Pink Film of the year by the major award covering the subject. As I have repeatedly stated, any recognition at ths ceremony is a real-world confirmation of notability. I mentioned at one of these discussions that Bitter Sweet, which only came in 10th, has been released to English-speaking audiences on DVD, and far from being the gutter-porn you ignorantly imply, is one of the best Japanese films made this decade in any genre which I have seen. To delete films like this based on pre-conceptions of "porn" is cultural bias. Where we differ is that you have no interest or knowledge of the genre-- as your mischaracterizations of it repeatedly show-- and you have shown no interest in Wikipedia covering the subject of world cinema in an encyclopedic, unbiased and uncensored manner. If this article, and the other three, are deleted, dozens of other articles on award-winning films must also be deleted, and hundreds on foreign-language films that have not won awards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your personal opinion that Bitter Sweet is "one of the best Japanese films made this decade" has much bearing on the absence of sources on the separate movie under discussion here. Critical reception? Cast interviews? Box office receipts? Budget? Controversies? Contextualization (i.e. if a movie is seen as influential/groundbreaking in some way). There is none of that available. I'm very interested in notable "world cinema" being covered; in fact, just for you, I'll write an article today that demonstrates the difference. Take a look at my contributions if you're interested.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I look forward to your-- what?-- 8th article, on Wikipedia, after you are forcing a contributor of over 600 articles to stop. In fact I'll contribute one and even dedicate it to you. I think Rape! 13th Hour would suit you just fine, GNG-wise. In the meantime, here are some AfDs for you to start: Blood Relation, The Yellow Handkerchief, Extra Human Being, Station, Sad Story of Self Supporting Child, Comic Magazine, Market, and The Incident. I tried to show you just ones I've started, but there may be some started by other editors. I'll drop a note at the Korean and Japanese film projects to let them know of your upcoming AfDs, so that they can back up their work in preparation to moving it to a project actually interested in an unbiased, uncensored coverage of world cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure your new article is on a pink film, Bali-- or your offering is irrelevant. Dekkappai (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I took your recommendation to check your contributions. Attempting to belittle a well-sourced stub on a notable film by comparing it to Feature Article criteria strains credulity when compared to "articles" such as this and this. And make this Pink film article you're working on your 7th, not 8th "contribution" here-- One of the alleged 7 is actually a disambiguation page. Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: You're comparing your work on "the highest grossing in Indonesian box office history" to a Japanese indie production? Why not go whole-hog and pull up Gone with the Wind? And, expert editor that you are, not one of your links works yet. I had to go into the article to verify the bloggy bits you had. I expected something at least as GNG-worthy as Wife to Be Sacrificed... Yeah, I'm real impressed. Now, with one film article under your belt, I look forward to your further campaign of harrassment and censorship. Dekkappai (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really should cool down. If there are sources, an article can be written. If there aren't sources, then it can't and it shouldn't. That's my position on the matter.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. You target my work for deletion then "civilly" request I cool down. There are reliable sources in this article-- A government film database, and the leading journal covering the genre. This is a well-sourced stub on a notable film, which will do until we have found sourcing comparable to your article on "the highest grossing [film] in Indonesian box office history". Dekkappai (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are both out of line. Stop it. Now. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Frankly, this is getting a little silly. The issue is whether this film is notable and whether there are sufficient reliable sources to sustain a verifiable article on it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I find it offensive to characterize concerns over the invalidation of WP:NOTFILM as "silly". Strictly applying WP:GNG will result in the deletion of hundreds of articles within the areas I have worked-- Korean and Japanese cinema. This should concern any editor who is here to contribute. There is no question that this film is notable-- award-winning, produced by a major studio, distributed nationally, involving notable personnel-- as proven by reliable sources, and that the article is entirely sourced-- reliably. The question is whether being notable is enough to satisfy Wikipedia's editor-created and English-biased GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing how the WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM interact is far from silly, and I didn't say that it was. The spat you're having with Bali Ultimate, on the other hand, is. Let's all get back to discussing the question Should this article be deleted, shall we? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This entire mass-deletion was a result of this spat, and Bali ultimate's oft-stated bias against the subject. In effect, my contributions were searched and targeted for deletion, so forgive me for taking this slightly personally. This deletion campaign will also continue after these AfDs have closed. Let's not insult each other's intelligence by pretending otherwise. I just request the honesty of nominating for deletion all the other thousands of articles against which Bali is not biased which have LESS notability and LESS reliable sourcing than this one. That, obviously, would be too much to ask. Dekkappai (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "Find sources" search using a garbled translation from Japanese is not exactly fruitful. For instance "奪う女　中出しの誘惑" perhaps more accurately translates as "Take out the temptation of being a woman"... with "creampie" nowhere in the translation... but that is still not the actual title. So it'd be helpful to get input from Japanese-reading Wikipedians who could accurately translate some of the following Find sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one of my translations, I think. I'll check and move all these over to direct transliterations if that's now the way to do things. (I always preferred transliterated titles, but at one time transliterated foreign titles were considered a no-no because of this being English Wiki...) I don't claim my translating abilities to be the best, but that one you've come up with, Michael, is spectacularly bad :-) "中出し" is "Nakadashi" which is the Japanese for Creampie (sexual act). The rest of the title ought to fall in place: 奪う can be either "Rob" or "Fascinate / Charm"[51] 女 =Woman, 誘惑 = temptation [52], so, "奪う女　中出しの誘惑" Fascinating (or Robbing?) Woman: Creampie's Temptation. All moot if the article is deleted, will move to "Ubau Onna: Nakadashi no Yūwaku" if it's not. Dekkappai (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I bow to one who has the knowledge. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some things you can't learn from the dictionaries... like Korean swear-words, which I've learned first-hand during heated discussions with my wife ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    많은 감사 Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd give you some choice epithets, but might get reported... so instead, 천만에요! Dekkappai (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    항상 미소로 역경 중에 좋은 --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep According to my detailed arguments for the other articles. Sufficiently notable in its genre, as shown by sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
Are pink films notable? - yes.
Is the Pink grand prix the top award for pink films? - yes.
Is a film nominated for the pink grand prix notable? -yes. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a modest article about a film of some notability. It says little, but what it does say depends on sources that seem adequate to the job. It may well be that no source will allow WP to say any more; if this is so, then the article should remain short: elsewhere, we don't delete articles because they'll never be able to exceed 10 kB or whatever; we shouldn't do so here, either. ¶ We read at the top of this AfD that The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. The lack of an apostrophe (and indefinite article) suggests some haste, but I think this makes a point that merits some thought. Imaginably, yes, editors could find titillating images and then create articles in which use of those images would be fair. And clearly a fair number of people are offended by WP's use of photos of tits. The standard answer to that is that WP is not censored. However, it is censored to some extent, and I think rightly so. Is this image undesirable? It shows a topless girl in an inviting pose, but there's no hint that she's a minor, that there's any coercion, or that there's any other particularly worrisome ingredient. So it does not concern me. ¶ One (poster-unrelated) reservation, however. If there is no English title, I'm unhappy with naming the article with a nonce English translation, however thoughtfully done. The original title (romanized) would be better -- though the translations are most charming. But this matter can be discussed later. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Welcome to this little tea-party, my favorite Deletionist. I very much agree with the transliteration option, but was told that, since we're English-speakers here, translations should be made. I do intend to move to transliterations, should these articles survive. Though I don't disagree with your observations about stubbery on notable subjects being acceptable here, I do have faith that this one will grow eventually. I suspect all it would take is for yours truly to purchase a few back-issues of Hayashida-sensei's publication, and the article would immediately expand. Also, as I pointed out somewhere, I've seen 10th-place rankings at this award get English-subtitled releases years after their Japanese release. One I am thinking of is Bitter Sweet (2004), which I heartily recommend as a fine example of Japanese indie cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Say what? A "tea-party"? Don't tea-bag on me! -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tea-bags are an abomination, and a symbol of all that is wrong with the modern world. Believe you me, if I were to go on a crusade, it would sooner be against tea-bags than pretty girls' titties... but we digress... Dekkappai (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as has been suggested. I'm concerned about the paucity of sources and the notability of the awards. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further evidence of the authority of Hayashida Yoshiyuki-- editor and publisher of P*G, and host of the Pink Grand Prix-- in the area of Pink film. He is the co-author of the books:
    Generation sex : Japanese "pink" movie posters
    女優林由美香 / Joyū Hayashi Yumika on the life of Pink film (and AV) actress Yumika Hayashi Dekkappai (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For all the heat that's been generated here, a few points remain clear, and mostly undisputed:
    • The only nontrivial claim for notability for the film is its Pink Grand Prix "award". The "award" is conferred as the result of a readers' poll conducted by a fan magazine, itself of no established notability. There is, apparently, no information available as to the size of the circulation of the magazine, the nature of its contents, or the level of participation in the readers' poll. The most reliable indication we have of the numbers involved is that the Grand Prix ceremony, supposedly the annual high point for pink film enthusiasts, is held at the Shinbungeiza theater -- which, according to its website, seats 266. [53] In contrast, a local "alternative" weekly newspaper in my area has a circulation of over 40,000, and it conducts a readers poll every year on subjects including "Best Area Band." After the poll is published, the newspaper stages an outdoor concert featuring the top-polling bands, regularly attended by several thousand people. But, for good reason, this comes nowhere near being an award significant enough to demonstrate notability.
    • The "Pink Grand Prix", we're told repeatedly, is the "Academy Awards" of its genre niche. This analogy just doesn't hold up. For all the varied citations on the point, it turns out to be the opinion of a single writer of no demonstrated expertise, published on a single website. No evidence of genuine significance is provided -- no substantial press coverage, no televised ceremonies, etc, etc. For all of its supposed importance, it is mentioned only twice (perhaps three times) in what is touted as the leading book on the subject, apparently with no substantial discussion. [54]
    • While that book's author, Jasper Sharp, is described as a "scholar" of pink film, that characterization is misleading. Sharp is a pop culture writer, with no reported or self-claimed academic/scholarly credentials.[55] And neither "Pink Grand Prix" nor the equivalent "Pink Taisho" generates any relevant Google Scholar hits.
    • The fact that people who later became notable may have been involved in this particular film is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:NOTFILM requires that a case be made for significance in the context of a person's career. None of the episodes of Whirlybirds or Bonanza or Bus Stop (TV series) directed by Robert Altman are individually notable. (NOTFILM also omits any suggestion that readers polls provide any basis for demonstrating notability.)
  • The overall lack of sourcing to establish notability remains completely unaddressed. Citations to comprehensive databases, even government-operated ones, may establish existence, but not notability (otherwise a listing on the Social Security Death Index or the Delaware registry of corporations would be sufficient to prove notability); and the PG fansite citations lack both independence and significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such POV complaints and WAX arguments have been repeatedly and soundly refuted... though with the length of this discussion, perhaps it was overlooked. The GNG is not the final arbiter of notability... specially for films that have their own cultural significance in their own country and for different reasons than a film might here in the United States. Notable in Japan is plenty notable for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's simple really. The Pink film is a highly notable genre in Japanese film, and has been for 50 years. The Pink Grand Prix is the major award in that genre, has been since 1988, and this is all sourced at the article. This film was awarded at that ceremony. Fellow Porn Project members who have voted Delete here have created hundreds of less reliably-sourced sub-stubs on less-notable subjects. Hundreds of major award-winners in Japan and Korea are equally or less-reliably sourced. Hundreds more of articles on films in world cinema have less claim to notability. Do we admit this film stub belongs, or do we delete thousands of film perfectly acceptable articles? And wipe away Epbr123's Anal-Scene winners with them? Dekkappai (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As its own notability in Japan has been established despite efforts to denigrate the genre and the genre awards of a Japanese-notable topic, there's no need to compare it to other stubs which have also survived to serve the project. However, this discussion does seem to underscore a sad Anglo-centricism in such considerations, doesn't it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I don't mean to discredit any one else's contributions of sourced content, or to state that they should not work on any subject area in which I have no knowledge or interest, or to decide how many articles I think should be allowed in that area, and to delete it down to fit that limitation. I only wanted to point out the double-standard being applied here. Dekkappai (talk) 15:17, 8 August 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.
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 no consensus. Reasonable arguments were made on both sides; there is certainly no consensus to delete this article, however. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil[edit]

Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" eight place in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." That's called coming in eighth, not "winning." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM, etc Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Dubious notability claims. English title appears to have been made up by the author to boot. --DAJF (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this article cites mainly the web site P*G Website -- it is not obvious to me that this is a reliable source adequate to verify content or establish notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOTFILM, and has no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [56], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Let's tone down the invective and allegations a bit and look at the facts instead. The film in question is an example of Japanese softcore pink film. This type of film has played an important part in Japanese film history and has been a factor in Japanese culture and politics. The reference [57] that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz cites above is an article by pink film authority Jasper Sharp and gives a good overview of the role that pink film has played in Japanese culture and its growing popularity internationally. Read the article to get a better understanding of where this particular Wikipedia article and others of its kind come from. Sharp has also written a serious study of pink film Behind the Pink Curtain, 2008, (ISBN 978 1 903254 54 7) and although in the article mentioned above, Sharp does in passing call PG a "fanzine", he is more explicit in his book describing it as a (page 379): "Specialist Japanese magazine on pink films, edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida, established in July 1994." And about the magazine's PG website, which has been brought into question, he has this to say (page 380): "The website of the best magazine on the subject. An invaluable, comprehensive and up-to-date resource on pink movies edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida." Thus, we have a reliable and authoritative source vouching for both PG magazine and the PG website. As for the Pink Grand Prix, Miho Toda in a series of articles [58] [59] [60] for a reliable source, calls them the Pink Film "Academy Awards" (アカデミー賞). As far as the film not being a first prize winner, if the awarding authorities from "the best magazine on the subject" choose to give awards to more than one candidate, we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". That would involve cultural bias, POV and OR to make such decisions. In summary, this is a film which has won a significant award given by a prominent magazine and is described in a reliable source. I know of no connection between PG magazine and the [sic] "porn-marketting machine in japan"; if there is one, a source would be welcomed. Incidentally, pink film has always been produced and distributed by the major film studios in Japan. As for "English title appears to have been made up by the author", Japnese film titles are often difficult to translate into decent English. If you know of another English title or can give a better translation, please do so. It would be appreciated. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We don't delete articles on notable, significant films based on cultural and moral bias. Comments about "titties" and "porn" show the ignorance and bias going into some of the votes here. The Pink film is a hugely significant part of Japanese cinema, and has been for nearly 50 years. It is, basically, all Japanese independent cinema. To equate it with US/western "porn" is culturally biased and ignorant, and nominating this article based on that bias is tantamount to attempting to censor coverage of Japanese independent cinema. Read the Pink film article for details. Many significant figures in Japanese cinema have worked in this genre. Just one example: Yōjirō Takita, the winner of last year's U.S. Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film started in this genre, made a hugely significant contribution to the genre, and this work is a significant portion of his work. The Pink Grand Prix is currently the main award in the genre. Anglo pink film scholar Jasper Sharp, and mainstream Japanese sources have noted this in several writings cited in the article. All films awarded at this ceremony are notable simply due to this one award. To claim they are not is to make a laughing-stock Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and encyclopedic coverage. Also, this film was produced by Yutaka Ikejima, written by Kazuhiro Sano, and distributed by OP Eiga. Read the articles on that director and the studio for some background. Are we to censor this because of the belligerent ignorance of a few Anglo prudes? I strongly suggest that anyone who purports to be interested in creating an encyclopedia which includes Japanese cinema as a subject area, review their !votes. Because I can tell you, your Delete vote is WRONG here. Pink films just like this one, are covered more and more by mainstream English-language texts on Japanese cinema. This is nothing less than an effort to censor an entire genre of Japanese cinema based on the cultural and moral bias of a few Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per comprehensive rationales of Cherryblossom1982 and Dekkappai.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few notes on the general significance of pink film This mass-deletion of pink film articles might benefit from a few points on the genre. The biased cultural point of view driving these nominations: "Porn! Delete!" is completely inaccurate. The nearest equivalent in the US would be the grindhouse/drive-in cinema of the '60s and '70s. The difference is that the Japanese ones are often made by notable, accomplished filmmakers and performers. These films are in no way comparable to what Westerners currently think of as porn. Some of these films-- Jasper Sharp says 10%-- which is approximately the number represented at the Pink Grand Prix-- are well-made, significant, artistic films which employ eroticism as only one element. The films can be in any genre-- horror, comedy, thriller, even science fiction. The only requisites to belonging to the genre are budgetary, shooting schedule, and the existence of a minimal amount of nudity. A few notes:
    1. "SM Queen" Naomi Tani was nominated for a Japanese Academy Award for work in pink and Roman Porno.[1][2]
    2. Actress Junko Miyashita was also nominated for Best Actress at the (mainstream) Japanese Academy Award for a performance in a Roman Porno. She won at other mainstream film awards.[3]
    3. Noted (mainstream) Japanese film critic Tadao Sato calls pink film director Kōji Wakamatsu, one of "Japan's leading directors of the 1960s." [4]
    4. (US) Academy Award-winner, Yōjirō Takita, has such pink films in his filmography as: High Noon Ripper (1984), Molester's Train: Please Continue (1982), Molester's Train: Hunting In A Full Crowd (1982), Molester's Train: Rumiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Keiko's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Momoe's Tush (1983), Molester's Train: Underwear Inspection (1984), Molester's Train: Blast Off (1984), Molester's Train: Best Kept Secret Live Act (1984), Molester's Train: Seiko's Tush (1985), Molester's Train: One Shot Per Train (1985), Molester's Train: 1 Centimeter From The Wall (1985), Molester And The Female Teacher (1984), Molester's School Infirmary (1984), Molester's Tour Bus (1985), Molester's Delivery Service (1986), Pink Physical Examination (1985), Serial Rape'' (1983), etc., etc., etc. Is Wikipedia going to join the ranks of the vilest of human endeavors by censoring the work of this master of cinema because his early works unashamedly display "titties" and "porn"?
    5. From November 1971 until 1988, Nikkatsu studio, Japan's oldest major film studio, made almost nothing but "Roman porno" films. (Director Masaru Konuma says that there was essentially no difference between Roman Porno and pink films except for the studio's higher budget.)[5]
    6. Kinema Jumpo, one of the major Japanese cinema journals, lists several Roman porno/pink films on its list of the 200 best Japanese films of the 20th century. Included on the list are such Roman pornos as : Crazy Fruit (狂った果実 - 1981), Love Hotel (ラブホテル - 1985), Rape! 13th Hour (レイプ25時　暴姦 - 1977), Angel Guts: Red Porno (天使のはらわた　赤い淫画 - 1981)[61]... For an Anglo-centric Wikipedia editor to dismiss films of the genre as "titties" and "porn" is a reflection on the educational background and the limited world-view of that editor, not of these films' place in world cinema. Wikipedia should realistically cover world cinema, not reflect the bias of individual editors. Dekkappai (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasoned comments above, and notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Western (or personal) POV should never be used to negatively color discussion of Eastern film, Eastern art, Eastern culture, as cultural standards greatly vary. Perhaps someone from WP:CSB might wish to join in here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "biased cultural viewpoint" driving these nominations is not that it's porn, but that it's non notable porn, not covered in any depth anywhere. The articles only exist to have a naked breasts displayed -- there's simply nothing else there.Bali ultimate (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BULLSHIT! You couldn't have made your bias plainer in your nomination if you tried. These films are NOTABLE because they have been AWARDED by the major award ceremony covering their field. If Wikipedia's "notability" criteria now excludes awards of notability by real authorities in the subject, then Wikipedia has lost its way. Dekkappai (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Didn't "win" an award (eigth place). 2. The award itself is a fan poll. 3. Apparently, the Japanese wikipedia doesn't write about must of these non-notable films. Presumbably, just the ones that have received substantial coverage, allowing for the composition of an actual encyclopedia article. Basicallly all these many dozens of articles (hundreds?) you've put up have no depth (they can't -- again, there are no sources except for the "Pink Grand Prix" fanpoll).Bali ultimate (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNKNOWNHERE is still no valid reason to delete. Othet cultures have differing views on what is notable to their culture and why. We really should avoid judging them by standards other than their own. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No on is arguing that "it isn't known here, so delete" so i'm not sure why you're talking about that. The argument is that there are no sources -- in any language. The inclusion standards are the same, whether a film is japanese or czech -- either there is substantial coverage (either in japan or somewhere else) or there is not.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say the argument is "no sources"? In any language?? Empty argument, as the article indeed has sources... even if non-English... and applicable inclusion standards have been met for a suitable stub, no matter the film topic or from what country the film came. It's always wise to remember that the GNG is not the final arbiter or notability, else there would be reason for any subsidiary or clarifying notability guides to exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Named 8th best release in a genre that typically sees over 100 annually. 2. The award is named by authorities and reliable Japanese sources as the "Academy Awards" of pink. Your personal opinion of it is irrelevant. 3. The Japanese Wiki has articles on comparable films, even without a pink film specialist editor, and has 2,800 on Adult Video performers. This film is listed in filmographies, and is likely to eventually get an article. Sourcing exists on these films, in Japanese, but the difficulty of locating Japanese sourcing is well known to anyone who has worked in the field. Basically, the articles I've put up are stubs on notable films, as proven by their recognition at a notable award. These articles are continuously added to as more sourcing is found. This is, and should continue to be, standard practice at Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk tsk, misapplication of term "bullshit". "Horseshit", please. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pink film is notable, many specific pink films are notable, I accept the award as apparently notable, and I appreciate that there are articles on them. I'd like to see more thorough coverage of pornography on Wikipedia. This specific film is not WP-notable, however. The film is lacking the sort of significant coverage from Reliable sources and consequent verifiability one would want for an encyclopedia article. Instead of prose following the topics in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) there are bare statements of fact as to having gotten the award, the cast, crew, and a brief plot outline, essentially WP:PLOTONLY apart from a short lede. If that's all that can be written, then that's a problem. Merely winning an award is not a guarantee a film is notable by WP's standards Wikipedia:Notability (films), only a general indicator it might be if there are RS for things other than the mere fact of winning the award. It's the existence of RS treating the film as the subject at length that is the measure of WP-notability. This film could be better treated in a list of films that won the award, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Winning a notable award is proof of notability both in the real world and at Wikipedia. Notable subjects in foreign languages/cultures/different time periods are more difficult to source. That is the purpose of subject-specific "notability" definitions, not to create further "notability" hurdles. The assertion of notability, and the proof of its notability are in the article. "bare statements of fact" is encyclopedic style. I could embellish, and then I'd be accused of "fan" writing. Working in this genre for several years, I know that sourcing is out there on films with this much notability, and will be added to this article. This is a completely appropriate stub on a notable film. Deleting an article of this much notability while retaining hundreds of English-language films of much less notability is practically the definition of systemic bias. It is bad for Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the most important false statement in the nomination, and in some Delete votes, is that this film does not pass WP:NOTFILM. It most certainly does pass per Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles, "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." This is noted, "This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion." (First criterion: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") This note, in my experience, is correct, as I have stated above. As indicated by this notable award, these films are covered by reviews and secondary sources, but because of the barriers of language, Japanese sourcing availability, and distance, these sources are found more slowly than are their English equivalents. Also, these films are distributed nationally through OP Eiga, 50 years history as perhaps the major pink film studio. This latter fact further passes [62]], "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." OP is a major studio, and the award is proof beyond its "merely having been produced". There is no valid reason to delete this article. Dekkappai (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM Further, the film easily passes point 2 of Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability mulitple times: ("The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.") Kazuhiro Sano, the film's writer and an actor in the film, and Yutaka Ikejima, the film's producer, are two of the most notable filmmakers in the history of pink film. As a Pink Grand Prix winner, this film is significant in their careers, yet details about the film would be inappropriate in their biographies. Hence, deletion of this article would be absolutely wrong for Wikipedia. // and ANOTHER part of Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles (2) states: "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:... "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." The film was re-released theatrically three years after its initial release.[63], so it is just short of passing that one too... How many times does the article have to pass WP:NOTFILM before this AfD nomination and the other three inappropriate, POINT-nominations are thrown out? It's obvious Notability is not the issue here. Dekkappai (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context from WP:NOTFILM: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: [...] The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." It is not "false" to say this film fails NOTFILM; it fails because it is one of those exceptions where a film won an award but RS do not exist. As I stated above, an award is an attribute that generally indicates that RS may exist for a film, an award is not a proof in and of itself of Notability. There must be RS for things other than the fact the film exists and won an award. NOTFILM doesn't mean one can speculate such sources exist or speculate that they will be created in the future if a film won an award, it's only thought to be likely that they may exist, and one must actually have the sources in hand ideally at the time of article creation, but if not then, now. They should not be a challenge to find if it is notable. Find them and I'd be quite happy to change my recommendation. Notability is an issue here and it is uncivil to accuse otherwise, just as the AfD was started on an uncivil note, something I criticized the nom for on his talk page. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrectly interpreting WP:NOTFILM. Your claim that all films must ALSO pass GNG makes WP:NOTFILM entirely useless. WP:NOTFILM should just be a redirect to GNG according to your interpretation. Actually, the award, and the other ways that the film pass NOTFILM are proof that the film is notable. Reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the film do exist but because of cultural, linguistic, and other matters we have not yet located those sources. The sources we DO have could not possibly be MORE reliable-- the leading journal covering the genre, and production information from the Ministry of Education. Subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NOTFILM help to prevent biased coverage by users who incorrectly assume that sourcing for all subjects is equally available-- not to create a redundant check. This is a notable film. More sources exist. A well-sourced stub with proof of the film's notability is sufficient until those further sources are found. Hundreds of articles on US films exist here with NO assertion of "notability" comparable to the four Japanese ones nominated, and LESS reliable sourcing than these. As far as "civility", I believe I have been remarkably restrained considering that these nominations were made in the most belligerent and biased manner, and that the very next !vote accused me of spamming, and later, recommended my banning from Wikipedia-- after I have, in stark contrast to the nominator and his henchman, started hundreds of articles-- no, not all in "titties" and "porn". Dekkappai (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Sharp (p.312 of his book) also call it a "promotional event"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's right -- also makes it clear the award is voted on by the audience. 10 Winners out of 16 films screened. "Meike was the leading figure behind the high profile pinku eiga promotional event the P-1 Grand Prix. Using the K-1 Grand Prix wrestling tournament as its model the format was that 16 films were screened in double-bills over a one week period and the audience would vote for their favorite to go on to the next round." I believe that's Mitsuru Meike who's a producer and director of pink films.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have my copy of the book with me, but I suppose the award ceremony "promotes" its subject as much as any other award ceremony does. If you're suggesting that it is run by a commercial studio, I believe this is incorrect. The award's notability is already well-established. And, by the way, if it matters, the P-1 Grand Prix is an entirely different event... But if we're out to disqualify all coverage of Japanese independent cinema, I don't suppose it matters... Dekkappai (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd. Jasper Sharp's book, which appears to be one of the most comprehensive on the business, doesn't seem to mention the the "Pink Grand Prix" at all, at least in the online searchable copy. Just the "P-1 Grand Prix." Assumed they were the same. You tell me they're not. If that's the case, he somehow neglected to mention the "academy awards" of the business in a 415 book on the subject. Hmmm...Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sharp uses the Japanese title, "Pink Taisho". Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What right do we have to declare a place 8 award in a notable Japanese award ceremony as unimportant? There are over 20 Oscar category awards and even getting nominated for just one estabilishes a certain notabililty. So how would we as non experts tell that a place 8 award in Japan lacks relevance? At least I have not seen any prove for this here. I am also impressed of the deep knowledge that Dekkappai and Cherryblossom1982 have in that field, so there is nothing to add to their comphrehensive explanations which even for an (open) western eye should make the inclusion of this article plausible. Both main editors are hardworking experts and would be loss for Wikipedia when stopping their contributions. Furthermore the nominator lacks obviously and without any doubt WP:NPOV in this area which even goes to name-calling of involved editors[64][65][66]. Testales (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources independent of the subject that might establish notability for this (and all the other single sourced porn films) particular film?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have admissions even from the Delete votes here that Pink film is a notable genre. How is it possible that films awarded by the "Academy Awards of Pink" are not notable? In spite of the repetition to the contrary, every fact in the article is reliably sourced, and the film is notable because of the award, the notable personnel and studio which made it, and because it passes WP:NOTFILM multiple times. Dekkappai (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eighth place. Nowhere near the exposure of the actual adademy awards. Where are the sources? Notfilm is clear == there should be sources. Where are they? Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You lie. See above. Dekkappai (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the personal attacks. The next one i'll seek action on. Best just to make your arguments without them. And see what above? The reflist? That has nothing to do with this particular film.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, for those of us trying to understand and assess these arguments, what is it that B.U. said that D. thinks is not true, and which point "above" does D. think refutes it? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because beeing biased, Bali wants to mass remove a lot of Japanese articles and does so by not accepting the given sources, mainly "P*G" and also declaring the listed awards(s) as not notable. The main editors have already explained why the sources are reliable and the awards are notable. No point to repeat the same arguements over and over again in 5 AfDs about the same topic. Testales (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as i see it is that there's only one source, the PG fanzine, and even that source is apparently little more than a tiny bit of plot summary and the mention that it came in 8th place. My bias is against the absence of sources that would allow for the construction of a proper article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were pretty clear at ANI, see the diff-links above. At least have the guts to agree to be biased. Testales (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? Again, we have the fanzine. Oh, and we also have the japanese government's database of all films produced in the country -- and the imdb of japan (another database of all films produced in the country). What we don't have is in depth discussion, review, contextualization, etc... of this film. There appears to be no coverage. Do you have sources to offer otherwise on this film?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P*G has been published by Hayashida Yoshiyuki-- published authority on the pink film, who has been interviewed on the subject-- for over 20 years, is cited as the leading journal on the pink film. I'd look up cites if they mattered. JMDB is not the equivalent of IMDB,[67] This presumption that there are no reliable sources on Japanese independent cinema, no reliable awards on Japanese independent cinema, no nothing on Japanese independent cinema which deserves mention on English Wiki just confirms the bias in the original nomination. Dekkappai (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You write. "The JMDB is not the equivalent of IMDB." Yet the wikipedia article you link to says it is similar to the Internet Movie Database, but lists only those films originally released in Japan. The columbia.edu link you provide also describes something identical to the IMDB, except with the caveat that it's limited to japan. As for the "presumption" that there are no reliable sources on Japanese indepenent cinema" etc... i never wrote that and certainly don't presume any of that. My contention is that this single award from a fanzine is insufficient to hang this (and what looks to be a least 100 other identical stubs) on. No one seems to find sources beyond these -- and none so far that treat these individual films in any depth. That's a bias in favor of some fairly basic standards.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Kenny. One of the problems with mass-nominations is that one forgets what is said where. I suppose I'll have to summarize the points made in all four discussions before these are closed. I had to step away from the computer just before I alluded to the "above" which may have been made at another discussion. To answer:
    "Notfilm is clear == there should be sources"
    There are sources in the article, and they are of the utmost reliability:
    "後家・後妻　生しゃぶ名器めぐり" (in Japanese). Japanese Cinema Database (Agency for Cultural Affairs). Retrieved 2010-06-19. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
    "後家・後妻　生しゃぶ名器めぐり" (in Japanese). Japanese Movie Database. Retrieved 2010-06-19.
    "後家・後妻　生しゃぶ名器めぐり" (in Japanese). P.G. Web Site. Retrieved 2010-06-19. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
    What BU probably means is "significant" coverage, per GNG. First, the P.G. article is significant coverage by a reliable source. Second, like all guidelines, WP:NOTFILM cites WP:GNG, and then states: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:"
    ""The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."
    This particular film won the award for Eighth Best Film at the Pink Grand Prix ceremony.[10]
    The Pink film is a highly notable genre of Japanese film (see above), and the Pink Grand Prix is the major award in the genre.[6][7][8][9]
    "Other evidence of notability... Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."
    Notable people involved in making the film include Yutaka Ikejima (one of the most important actor-directors in the history of pink film), and Kyōko Godai (article not started yet, but one of the most important screenwriters in pink)
    "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited."
    The film was distributed nationally by OP Eiga, a major pink studio for 50 years. (See Japanese Ministry of Education link above).

Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←e.c.)http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~p-g/data/2004/040304/goke.htm doesn't seem "substantial" to me: it looks like a mere listing with just a plot "teaser", not even a full summary, and certainly no critical review. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film has been awarded at the major ceremony covering this genre. Every fact in the article is covered by reliable sourcing, including from the Japanese government. The film is significant in the filmographies of at least two notable filmmakers. The film was distributed nationally by a major studio. It passes WP:NOTFILM on multiple counts. Dekkappai (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country surely doesn't apply to Japan? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is meant by "major film producing country", and I'm not prepared to ask the project, as the film passes Notability under the criteria several times, but parsing sentences seems to get nowhere. If "major" is determined by number of films produced, I would think Japan is a major film producing country. If "major" indicates international distribution, I am not sure. Minor point anyway. Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

References

  1. ^ "Awards for Naomi Tani". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-03.
  2. ^ "第2回日本アカデミー賞優秀作品". Japan Academy Prize. Retrieved 2010-05-16. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Awards for Junko Miyashita". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
  4. ^ Sato, Tadao. Currents in Japanese Cinema. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd. ISBN 0-87011-815-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Konuma, Masaru. Interviewed by Weisser, Thomas and Yuko Mihara Weisser. (1998). "An Interview with Masaru Konuma; An exclusive ACC interview with Nikkatsu's most notorious director conducted... in Tokyo on November 6, 1998." in Asian Cult Cinema, #22, 1st Quarter 1999, p.21.
  6. ^ a b Toda, Miho (2004-04-30). "Infiltrating the "Pink Prize", the Academy Awards of the Pink Film: Not Only Erotic: Physical Sensation Report on the "Hidden Strength" of the Pink Film (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞ともいうべき＜ピンク大賞＞に潜入エロだけじゃないピンク映画の"底力"を体感レポート！ - Pinku eigakai no Akademiisho to moiumeki "Pinku taishō" ni sennyu: Erodakejanai pinku eigo no "sokochikara" wo taikan report!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-12. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ a b Toda, Miho (2004-05-06). ""Pink Prize": What Should Be Called the Academy Awards of the Pink Film World: Sora Aoi, Yumika Hayashi Among Those Present, Close Coverage of this Yearly Festival (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞というべき"ピンク大賞"蒼井そら、林由美香らが来場する、年に一度の祭典に密着！ - Pinku eigakai no akademii sho to iubeki "Pinku taisho" Aoi Sora, Hayashi Yumikaraga raijosuru, toshi ni ichido no saiten ni mitchaku)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-02-13. Retrieved 2009-08-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ a b Toda, Miho (2007-05-08). ""Pink" Films Seen with Great Excitement on the Shinbungeiza Theater's Big Screen! The Academy Awards of the R-18 Film "19th Pink Prize" (新文芸坐の大スクリーンで観る"ピンク"な映画に大興奮！ R-18映画のアカデミー賞こと＜第19回ピンク大賞＞は立見続出!!! - Shinbungeiza no dai screen de miru "Pink" na eiga ni daikofun! R-18 eiga no akademiisho koto "Dai 19kai pinku taishō" wa tachikenzokushutsu!!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-01-17. Retrieved 2009-08-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ a b Sharp, Jasper (2008-12-04). "Pink thrills: Japanese sex movies go global". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2009-01-23. ...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards every April, an all-nighter held at the Shinbungeiza theater in Tokyo's Ikebukuro district that screens the Top 5 of the year as voted for by readers of the fanzine PG. This friendly event attracts an eclectic range of viewers of both genders, from industry figures to hardcore cinephiles and the casually curious.
  10. ^ "Best Ten of 2007 2007年度ベストテン" (in Japanese). P*G Website. Retrieved 2010-06-18. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Delete. As others have pointed out, NFILMS is used to show when it is expected that coverage will exist. In this case there is doubt whether NFILMS applies (8th place being called an award win?). As such, we should look in more depth to see whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. These sources do not seem to be available so the article should be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Anyone who has worked on subjects on Japanese popular culture knows that Japanese sourcing is notoriously lacking on the Internet. The little that comes available is usually quickly removed and blocked from archives. As a film released nationally by a major studio, with notable personnel and having been awarded in its genre, this film certainly has coverage which meets GNG. That is the point of making these additional criteria-- to prevent biased coverage by forcing subjects in all languages to adhere to a criterion set up with the English-speaking world in mind. If this article is deleted, I have dozens of other articles on Korean- and Japanese-language films which have won major national awards-- the equivalent of our Academy Awards. Since the exact same situation applies to these films, they will need to be deleted, and I will remove them to a project which is genuinely interested in a non-biased, uncensored coverage of world cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it "certainly has coverage which meets GNG" then there should be sources in the article to show as much. If the sources aren't available then how can an article be written about it? If you have written all these articles then what reliable independent sources have you used? Quantpole (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having received a notable award in the field, been released nationally, and with notable personnel and studio involved, the film was certainly the subject of reviews and other commentary. WP:NOTFILM verifies that these are indications of available sourcing. Due to the nature of Japanese sourcing, this is not easily available to us. This sourcing-- both Japanese and English-- will come available in time. I've seen this with many such films. In the meantime, this is a completely reliably sourced stub, and the film is notable as shown by the award. Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't normally work in this area, but I saw this an AN/I. There's a key question here: is winning an award, but not the top award, notable? There are at least 3 prominent analogous situations: 1 Nominees for the Academy awards--these are a select number of films, not any film any member happens to nominate--they're essentially finalists, not the plain meaning of nominees. Do we accept this as notability? (though actually, any film here would meet the other pars of the guideline, too, at least for the major categories.).2 The Booker Prize--there are three stages of nomination, a limited number of nominees, a longlist of about 20, and a shortlist of 6. Books making the shortlist will always be notable on other criteria, but I think achieving this can fairly be called a major award. ; even a book making the longlist will usually be notable on other criteria. . 3 Nominees for the Nobel Prize -- this again is a selection--thousands of people can propose candidates, but the 200 or actual ones being considered for the various prizes are selected by a panel. This is usually not used here as a formal criterion, because the official list of nominees is not announced, so there is no RS, just someone saying it on the basis, I presume, of rumor. I assume anyone on it, though, would be considered notable. Now, for this particular award, it seems from the article on the prize that there is an official shortlist of the top 10. By analogy, it would be at least probable notability. It would intrinsically seem reasonable to me that the 10 best films in a major genre like these would be suitable of coverage in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The list is called, in Japanese, "Ten Best", and this is of a very prolific genre. When there are ties for one of the upper spots, there is no "Tenth" listing for the next lower place. Dekkappai (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the article on the prize does give rankings of the films within the list, so ranks within it do matter, and are not a question of 10 ties for first place. That article seems very clear that there is indeed a first place, and a tenth. DGG ( talk ) DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the list was of the 20 best films, would they all seem intrinsically notable to you? Where would you draw the line? Epbr123 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not up to use as editors to draw the line on any "Best" list. The reliable sources do. I don't have the book with me, but Jasper Sharp says about 10% of the Pink film output are of a higher artistic quality than the average. This number, and less, approximately coincides with the percentage of the genre recognized by the Pink Grand Prix. Frankly, we are not talking about porn videos here, but theatrically released, 35mm films. Basically all Japanese independent cinema. These films have a minimal amount of nudity just to be included in the distribution circuit, and to put butts in seats. Other than that, there is no reason to be so squeamish about covering this genre. Dekkappai (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also, as possible sources of squeamishness about these film: The studios add lurid titles and posters to the films to attract audiences. Promising more than is shown is a classic exploitation device. Hisayasu Satō's film, which he titled Love Letter in the Sand was renamed by the studio, Pervert Ward: Torturing the White Uniform. Water's High became Rape Climax!, Gimme Shelter was changed to Exciting Eros: Hot Skin, etc., etc., etc... In fact, in the interview on the DVD to his film, Love - Zero = Infinity (renamed Filthy Wife: Wet by the studio), Satō says, "when they change the storyline title to the final title for the cinema, it doesn't click in my mind straight away when I hear it. So I sometimes think, are they talking about my film? I get confused sometimes." Dekkappai (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do the English titles of these films come from? Do you translate them yourself? Epbr123 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I find English titles-- either in the Weisser or the Sharp books, or other sources including English release titles, I use them. Otherwise I'm not sure whether to translate or use the Japanese. Common practice in the past-- as I've observed it-- has been to provide English translations. This one is one of those cases. If the Japanse title is more appropriate, it would be simplet to move it to: Goke * Gozai: Seishaburi Meikimeguri. In fact, personally, I'd be more comfortable with that, as creating our own translations is Original Research. Dekkappai (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right... Transliterated or own translation, I consider it temporary until I find an "official" English title-- either a translation given in a reliable source, or in an official English release. (Rarely a poster will contain an English-ish version of the title, but it's often such poor English I hesitate to use it.) Dekkappai (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some have questioned the notability of the award. One usually expects the news of an award to be reported in reliable sources other than the awarding body; there do not appear to be reliable sources for this film winning the award other than the awarding magazine itself. While that is a bad sign, I'm willing to accept the award itself as generally notable. However, the key questions to me are: is winning an award an automatic guarantee of notability (according to NOTFILM, no), and does winning an award exempt an article from the requirement of reliable sources that"address the subject directly in detail" (according to NOTFILM, no). According to Dekkappai's own research on this topic, "there are major difficulties in locating Japanese sourcing due to its notorious absence from the Web, and its tendency to quickly disappear and then be blocked from archives."[68] I appreciate that there are people researching these films, and hopefully more articles and books will be written about them, but when it comes to Wikipedia, would it not be better to create articles on just the ones with RS, rather than stubs for hundreds that don't have them? A WP:Stub"should be capable of expansion" not in theory, but in actuality; are these truly capable of expansion, when the situation is as Dekkappai describes? Until such time as there are RS, a list of these films would seem to be a better way of treating them, I think. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The award ceremony has been covered in secondary sourcing such as [69], [70], [71], [72], etc. I've seen others but have not always added them, as adding too many leads to accusation of "spam", and as the award has not come under such scrutiny before. Again, the articles are all completely reliably sourced. They are stubs, but every fact in them, including their evidence of notability, is sourced. Sourcing on these subjects appears, and then disappears. Not having a stand-alone article on a notable subject significantly decreases the chance that one of those sources will be added when found. Also, these films-- the ones given the notability of this award-- do get re-released, sometimes a decade or more after initial release. Lately some have even come to the English-language DVD market, resulting in English-language reviews and sourcing. A well-sourced stub on a notable subject should be permissable as it attracts such sourcing. Dekkappai (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia currently has more articles on Pink Films than all other pornographic films put together. This "best 10" criteria is clearly too inclusive. Either that or thousands of stubs on non-Pink porn films are warranted to redress the balance. Epbr123 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First: It's not a good argument to claim that because one area is poorly-covered, a better-covered area should be made equally poor. Second: As said somewhere in one of these discussions, I think, equating Pink films with "pornographic films" is, at best, misleading. These are Japanese independent films made by-- often-- very competent filmmakers. Again, Academy-Award (Japanese and U.S. Academy) nominees and winners have worked in this genre, and produced some masterpieces within the genre. Again, some of these have been named by Japanese critics among the top 200 films made in Japan during the last century (and Japan has an extremely prolific film industry). (This is all covered and sourced above in a comment titled "A few notes on the general significance of pink film") Another editor recently removed the category Category:1970s pornographic films from Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls to no complaint. Pink films are no more explicit than Meyer's films, less so than his later work. In fact Meyer's films, and other western softcore of that era, was imported to Japan as yōpin or "Western pink". Perhaps a firmer definition of "porn" is in order. I have been using the category for these quality softcore productions, but this puts them in the same category with hardcore videos of little-to-no cinematic value. This problem will equally apply to US grindhouse/drive-in films of the '60s and '70s by such people as Doris Wishman, Herschell Gordon Lewis, David F. Friedman, etc. They are softcore porn, and were called such in their day. Today they are rated 'R' at worst, and equating them with adult videos would do them a disservice, and, possibly-- though not necessarily, if WP is truly uncensored-- result in an intentional removal of coverage of that genre simply because some editors are opposed to "porn"-- justified by an overly-literal interpretation of "notability", of course. Dekkappai (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first answer would be more valid if this "better-covered area" contained more than dozens of unexpandable stubs. Wikipedia's amount of Pink Film articles is actually far more than its amount of other softcore film articles, so this just makes my argument stronger. Epbr123 (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, lack of good work in one area never justifies destroying good work in another. We are all volunteers here and are free to work in whatever area interests us. Several times I have brought up at the "Porn Project" the extremely poor coverage of very notable softcore US films and genres from the '60s and '70s and have been met with silence. Apparently you guys have other priorities, such as deciding what not to cover. I strongly suggest that you do some of this work rather than look for things to remove. Also, perhaps it needs to be pointed out, Japanese erotic entertainment is inherently more notable within Japanese society than their comparable counterparts in the West. Yes, you read that right. First, I've seen it claimed that the Japanese erotic entertainment is the largest in the world. Whether that is true or not, it is certainly true that the stigma attached to working in this genre is nothing like that in the West. "Mainstream" entertainers will work in these films. Performers and filmmakers who start in these films will regularly move on to "mainstream" work. I could cite these claims if needed, but this one might help for a start: "Many Japanese filmmakers started out making either pink eiga (soft core porn) or roman poruno films. Kaneko Shusuke, for example... In Japan there is not the same line drawn between pornography and family entertainment that there is in the West.... Pop singers who have sung on television, can suddenly and unexceptionally turn up in adult videos. And in turn, stars of pornography can move readily onto television which. moreover, has its own risque programming.", etc." -- Iwamura, Rosemary (1994). "Letter from Japan: From Girls Who Dress Up Like Boys To Trussed-up Porn Stars - Some of the Contemporary Heroines on the Japanese Screen". Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, vol. 7 no. 2. Retrieved 2007-04-25. Besides simple bias and "Deletionism" we are dealing with major cultural and artistic differences, differences in the definition of "porn". Dekkappai (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this short article on a film of modest but ascertainable notability. What it says is sourced adequately. If people here are offended by the tiny reproduction of small photos of tits, then they're free to take up this burning matter in an RfC or somewhere; if they prevail in that great debate, then there can be a Great Wikipedia Titty Iconoclasm, leading articles such as this either to have no illustration or to have illustrations with black rectangles superimposed. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If this image is public domain, it might serve as a nice icon for the project... Dekkappai (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I so enjoy the sight of justice, decency, truth and bacon in the morning. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good God, don't remind me... Dekkappai (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as has been suggested. I'm concerned about the paucity of sources and the notability of the awards. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I thank you for your long-considered vote, and promise to work harder on expanding this and similar stubs before creating new ones. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Epbr123, since you believe appropriately-sourced stubs on award-winners are not acceptable, why is Eric Swiss, which you started as this exempt from this rule? Or Aletta Ocean? or Anthony Crane? or Eric Masterson (pornographic actor)? or any number of probably hundreds of similar articles on U.S. hardcore porn stars. I have never heard of any of these people, and they're U.S. subjects, and I am in the U.S. Since there is no "significant" secondary sourcing at any of these articles, presumably, these subjects have stubs here only because they won something at the AVN or XRCO Awards-- which I also had never heard of until I began looking in at Porn Project discussions. These awards are not for anything of real value, such as a film of high quality in a notable genre of cinema, but for performing some sort of sex act on videotape. In contrast to the 10 films and a few personnel awards at the Pink Grand Prix, these U.S. awards apparently give out dozens of nominations and awards annually, for every sex act they can come up with. Also, it seems to me that these U.S. articles are much more poorly sourced than the four theatrically-released films up for deletion here. IAFD.com? What's that? Is it comparable to a Japanese government database? These Japanese films, besides their awards, also have the presence of reliably-sourced notable film personnel, and a major studio behind them. Also, many films in this softcore genre, which you here vote to delete, have a high reputation for real cinematic and artistic quality, whereas these U.S. porn stubs-- incapable of expansion, as far as I am concerned-- are propped up only for awards for hardcore sex acts. Yet these film articles I've started are supposedly bringing down Wikipedia's quality, while yours-- less reliably source, and "notable" for less significant reasons-- are OK. What's going on here? // This question, of course, applies to all four articles under discussion. Dekkappai (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never argued that there should be no stub articles that rely on awards and nominations, just that the number should be limited. As you know, I've been a main campaigner in raising the WP:PORNBIO standards, which has greatly reduced the amount of porn star stubs permitted. Epbr123 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I am though a bit confused why you're now attacking these US porn star stubs when you've been their biggest defender in the past [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. Epbr123 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attacked nothing. If I have "attacked" your stubs, where are the AfDs? Fighting rampant Deletionism on a subject in which I have no interest and being a subject's "biggest defender" are two entirely different things. Since you have not addressed the question (Why do you vote to Delete these artices when you recently created less-reliably-sourced stubs with less information on subjects with a less credible claim to "notability"?) shall we just say you support a double standard for these articles, and that your !vote here is invalid? Dekkappai (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Attacked as in criticised. I can't really see how this is relevant to this AfD, but I'll try to answer your question again more fully. The stubs I created are just as reliable as yours as there's consensus that IAFD is reliable; yours are longer because I prefer not to write lengthy articles based solely on info from primary sources and databases; the subjects of my articles have a more credible claim to notability as they have won multiple awards rather than an eighth place; and it's the quantity of the Pink Film stubs that I mainly object to. I'd happily vote to keep these films if they had actually won awards. Epbr123 (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying if I don't want articles mass-deleted from a subject area by an editor with an apparent agenda, that I must be the subject's "biggest defender"? Well I'm glad these articles weren't on U.S. Republican politicians then, because I believe they too deserve articles, yet I would feel I'd been grossly insulted if someone who attempted to mass-delete them had called me their "biggest defender". But we digress, Epbr123. This is extremely relevant to this discussion because you are applying a double-standard between U.S. subjects and Japanese, and you are offering no rational defense for this. You support the award criteria at WP:PORNBIO, and, as shown above, have created countless sub-stubs on hardcore pornographic subjects "awarded" only for performing a sex act on tape. But here you vote to delete films in a notable genre known for producing some very well-made, artistic films. You repeatedly claim the Pink Grand Prix is not an award. This is preposterous. There are images of people on stage, accepting awards at these ceremonies. For the "Best Ten" section of the award, there is no "8th place"-- or whatever, there are ten awards in that section. 8th Best Pink Film release of the year. "Here's your award. Omedetō gozaimasu!" Your parsing of this fact rings extremely strange when you create dozens of stubs with less information on subjects who won their "award" only for performing one of apparently dozens of such acts awarded at ceremonies the average American has never heard of. I am unaware of any guideline or policy which justifies your support of the deletion of articles on Pink films based on your objection to the quantity of articles. These films are sourced, they are notable, they deserved articles. A thorough coverage of a topic is what is known in the real world as "encyclopedic", and it is odd that this is considered a bad thing by someone working at a project claiming to be an encyclopedia-- and one not bound by traditional limitations. Your insinuation that the Porn Project has the authority to deem the IAFD more "reliable" than a database maintained by the Japanese government is equally preposterous. Your assertion that the Pink Grand Prix is only primary-sourced is wrong. I've already provided secondary sourcing has long been at the article on the award. Just because, confident that you and others at the Porn Project actually supported articles on award-winning subjects under your watch, I honestly didn't expect such an attack (no, not a verbal attack, a real attempt to delete these articles) from you-- even despite our past differences. So here is a secondary reliable source proving this film was awarded: Toda, Miho (2004-04-30). "Infiltrating the "Pink Prize", the Academy Awards of the Pink Film: Not Only Erotic: Physical Sensation Report on the "Hidden Strength" of the Pink Film (ピンク映画界のアカデミー賞ともいうべき＜ピンク大賞＞に潜入エロだけじゃないピンク映画の"底力"を体感レポート！ - Pinku eigakai no Akademiisho to moiumeki "Pinku taishō" ni sennyu: Erodakejanai pinku eigo no "sokochikara" wo taikan report!)" (in Japanese). www.walkerplus.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-12. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help). I see no valid justification for the extreme double-standard you are applying between sub-stubs on U.S. hardcore performers and these better-sourced articles on nationally-released theatrical films in a notable, softcore Japanese genre. A genre in which many of the most high-profile, mainstream Japanese filmmakers of the last half century have worked. Dekkappai (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Within the same post, you've accused me of having an agenda against US porn and of having a bias towards US porn. Have you ever considered that some people may just like to base their votes on the notability guidelines? The articles I AfDed failed the guidelines, the articles I created pass the guidelines, and these films fail the guidelines. Epbr123 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mass-deleted, re-created the guidelines, and then created mass-stubs. You now claim that you seek to delete articles, and change guidelines to allow these deletions simply because you, personally, feel there are "too many". This is in complete opposition to any project seeking "encyclopedic" coverage of any subject. It is also in direct opposition to one of Jimbo Wales' most famous quotes: "if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. ¶ Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. ¶ Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do. ¶ That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum." I'm not interested in what your exact bias is, but when you refuse to allow those guidelines to apply to Japanese subjects which are far more notable than the countless sub-stubs on US subjects you created, I think there is a double-standard at work here. I've successfully refuted, many times, every excuse you make for voting Delete at these articles, yet you have not budged. I believe there's something else at work here. Dekkappai (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the discssuions at the last few Pink AFDs would seem a quite valid argument for a reclassification of what certain editors in the United States might consider "porn"... versus what Europe might consider porn, versus what Japan might consider porn, versus what Germany, or Brazil, or Mexico, or Korea, or France, or Italy, or Argentina, etc. might consider porn... and how and why they might have certain films considered "soft" or "hard" in their own cultures... or even how some are considered art films... and how do non-U.S. considerations play or not into film classifications G, PG, PG-13, R, X, XX, etc... here, and in whatever equivalents other countries have. These discussions underscore the hazzard associated in judging something by one culture's set of criteria, as not reflective of another's. Many iffy articles may be tagged as "porn" and receive a bad case of imposed-guilt-by-association, and could benefit by having that tag removed so as to not confuse a reader.... or conversely... perhaps it's time to add a porn tag to every movie that ever at any time showed a bare bottom and breast. Would Clint Eastwood's gratuitous bare behind in Escape from Alcatraz declare that film as porn in an even stricter world? Would Arnold Schwartzenegger's gratuitous bare walk through scenes and his demands for other's clothes in The Terminator films have those tagged as porn? Or the display of "pretty girls titties" in Dragonslayer have that be tagged as porn (Yes... ridiculous WAX examples of how far that pendulum of "propriety" could swing if not held in check by logic and common sense). Do we judge one country's film industry by our Western set of standards or theirs? Succinctly, and in consideration of how nudity and sexuality in film is considered notable quite differently in and by non-English cultures, where is the line drawn, and how does it fail us here by acting as if that arbitrary line were an immutable absolute? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Perhaps it's not known among the voters here that displays of genitalia or pubic hair is illegal in Japan. (Or was until very recently-- I'm not sure now, as I saw a recent pink film that included a shot of a woman standing in full frontal nudity, but no "action" involved) In any case no Pink film would ever receive more than an "R", "NC-17" tops rating in the US. Even buttock & boob is rare in these films-- popping up once every 10-15 minutes or so. Some of the older ones could probably get by with a PG-13. So, when some Delete-voters support articles create stubs on hardcore pornography with less sourcing, no claim to artistic value, less content and less claim to "notability", isn't the moral outrage perhaps, a little mis-placed? Dekkappai (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment = Pornography is notable, ergo all pornographic films should have their own page. That's what I'm hearing from the Japanese porn hobbyist crowd. It's time to clean our own house so that Jimbo Wales doesn't have to have to. These are nothing but obscure Japanese fuck-flicks with titillating tit pix. Wheeeee! Oh, are those all-too-perfect commercial graphics for each and every page properly licensed? Hmmmmmm???? This sort of lame page about a non-notable Japanese porn flick should have been stopped three years ago. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wheeeee, Carrite. Last time (several centimetres above) you wrote that Somebody is spamming articles on cheesy Japanese porn movies. Advertising. Now they're "nothing but obscure", which would seem to rule out "cheesy". ¶ Could you point to a diff or two in which those in "the Japanese porn hobbyist crowd" are saying that "Pornography is notable, ergo all pornographic films should have their own page"? ¶ "Oh, are those all-too-perfect commercial graphics for each and every page properly licensed?" Click on any, see what license (or excuse for the lack of a license) you find, and comment on that. (I believe that most are "fair use". If you think that "fair use" is claimed wrongly, then feel free to act on this.) ¶ A "lame page", you say. Is it lame in that it's a stub, or that it's unsatisfactorily sourced, or that the subject notability isn't great, or that it's spam, or that it has an aroma of cheese, or because you imagine that Wales wouldn't like it, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have missed a few points, Carrite. These films are (U.S.) R-rated "porn" of the type shown in drive-ins in the '60s. Nothing explicit. Good stories, good direction, acting, cinematography, etc. On the other hand, at least one of your fellow Delete-voters is creating less-reliably sourced stubs on hardcore pornographic subjects "notable" for such things as "Best Anal Scene". Why is the outrage pointed at the genre which has produced some masterpieces of Japanese cinema rather than the hardcore porn? Dekkappai (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further evidence of the authority of Hayashida Yoshiyuki-- editor and publisher of P*G, and host of the Pink Grand Prix-- in the area of Pink film. He is the co-author of the books:
    Generation sex : Japanese "pink" movie posters
    女優林由美香 / Joyū Hayashi Yumika on the life of Pink film (and AV) actress Yumika Hayashi Dekkappai (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For all the heat that's been generated here, a few points remain clear, and mostly undisputed:
    • The only nontrivial claim for notability for the film is its Pink Grand Prix "award". The "award" is conferred as the result of a readers' poll conducted by a fan magazine, itself of no established notability. There is, apparently, no information available as to the size of the circulation of the magazine, the nature of its contents, or the level of participation in the readers' poll. The most reliable indication we have of the numbers involved is that the Grand Prix ceremony, supposedly the annual high point for pink film enthusiasts, is held at the Shinbungeiza theater -- which, according to its website, seats 266. [80] In contrast, a local "alternative" weekly newspaper in my area has a circulation of over 40,000, and it conducts a readers poll every year on subjects including "Best Area Band." After the poll is published, the newspaper stages an outdoor concert featuring the top-polling bands, regularly attended by several thousand people. But, for good reason, this comes nowhere near being an award significant enough to demonstrate notability.
    • The "Pink Grand Prix", we're told repeatedly, is the "Academy Awards" of its genre niche. This analogy just doesn't hold up. For all the varied citations on the point, it turns out to be the opinion of a single writer of no demonstrated expertise, published on a single website. No evidence of genuine significance is provided -- no substantial press coverage, no televised ceremonies, etc, etc. For all of its supposed importance, it is mentioned only twice (perhaps three times) in what is touted as the leading book on the subject, apparently with no substantial discussion. [81]
    • While that book's author, Jasper Sharp, is described as a "scholar" of pink film, that characterization is misleading. Sharp is a pop culture writer, with no reported or self-claimed academic/scholarly credentials.[82] And neither "Pink Grand Prix" nor the equivalent "Pink Taisho" generates any relevant Google Scholar hits.
    • The fact that people who later became notable may have been involved in this particular film is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:NOTFILM requires that a case be made for significance in the context of a person's career. None of the episodes of Whirlybirds or Bonanza or Bus Stop (TV series) directed by Robert Altman are individually notable. (NOTFILM also omits any suggestion that readers polls provide any basis for demonstrating notability.)
  • The overall lack of sourcing to establish notability remains completely unaddressed. Citations to comprehensive databases, even government-operated ones, may establish existence, but not notability (otherwise a listing on the Social Security Death Index or the Delaware registry of corporations would be sufficient to prove notability); and the PG fansite citations lack both independence and significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such POV complaints, inappropriate WAX arguments, and repeated efforts to denigrate awards notable in Japan, have been repeatedly and soundly refuted... though with the length of this discussion, perhaps it was overlooked. The GNG is not the final arbiter of notability... specially for films that have their own cultural significance in their own country and for different reasons than a film might here in the United States. Notable in Japan is plenty notable for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael-- This AfD was closed "No consensus". There's no point in continuing the debate. It's over. Apparently someone is messing with histories. Dekkappai (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps mixing up AfDs, Dekkappai? I can't see that this one was closed. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately 19:44, August 7, 2010 -- King of Hearts closed them all "No consensus", I believe. Apparently only one shows as closed now. I couldn't swear it was all five closed-- I think it was though. I'm dead certain it was more than one. Very fishy. Dekkappai (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Only one so far. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, got confused there somehow. If I read HB correctly above, he makes the same non-points made repeatedly by the Delete crowd. And again: Every single fact in the article is reliably sourced. The film has a confirmation of real-world notability far beyond the hundreds of hardcore ones that fellow Delete-voter Epbr123 has created. indeed it is sourced better than some Korean and Japanese Academy Award-winners, and that's not even counting articles on films with less claim to notability. So are we going to pull a thousand-article holocaust on film articles, or are we going to admit the truth: This stub belongs? Dekkappai (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As its own notability in Japan has been established despite efforts to denigrate the genre and the genre awards of a Japanese-notable topic, there's no need to compare it to other stubs which have also survived to serve the project. However, this discussion does seem to underscore a sad Anglo-centricism in such considerations, doesn't it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that it is untrue that I have created hundreds of US hardcore porn stubs. I have though caused the deletion of dozens of such stubs, against the will of certain extreme inclusionists who believe that every porn star and film should have an article. Epbr123 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The number? Don't know. But if we look at at: User:Epbr123/Adult award winners and nominees, we see potentially hundreds of one-line stubs. If we look at a few off this list: Aletta Ocean, Anthony Crane, Eric Masterson (pornographic actor), this confirms a few things. But whomever the creator, and whatever the number eventually to be made off that list, the potential number far exceeds that at the Pink Grand Prix article-- covering an award ceremony over 20 years old. Most of the articles on subjects awarded there have already been expanded beyond stub class, this one will follow in time. And again, these are theatrically-released, quality films with some sofcore erotic content. Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how any of this demonstrates that your film articles pass the notability guidelines. It seems to just be a way of attacking someone who disagree with you. Epbr123 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to "attack" you, and I'm sorry if showing your work makes you feel that way. I only mean to compare your contributions-- which I assume you believe valid here-- against what you are voting to delete here. I don't mean to discredit yours or any one else's contributions of sourced content. Nor do I wish state that you or anyone else should not be free to contribute content in any subject area which interests you, but in which I have no knowledge or interest. Nor do I wish to put an artificial limit on how many articles you may contribute in any subject area. I believe all this is proven by the fact that I have never, to my knowledge, actually attacked any of your work by attempting to delete it, as you are attempting to do to mine right here and at four current other AfDs (one now closed). My only intention was to point out the double-standard being applied here. I'm sorry if that offends you. Dekkappai (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can't see how accusing me of double-standards, or suggesting that my work makes me feel ashamed, demonstrates that your film articles pass the notability guidelines. Epbr123 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The film has been awarded at the most notable award covering the genre. Criteria which you yourself claim to have engineered, and stubs which you yourself have started verify an award as proof of notability. The film has notable personnel and was released nationally by a major studio. As an award-winning film in the filmographies of notable filmmakers who work in this genre (and, needless to say, in stark contrast to some TV episodes made by Robert Altman), these films deserve stand-alone articles. This is all covered by WP:NOTFILM. Naturally you're not going to admit to the double-standard you are applying between your work and mine, and obviously you refuse to budge from your Delete vote, no matter that every justification you've made for it has been shown to be questionable at best. Have the last word if you must, but I see no point in continuing this thread. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fundamental logical flaw here: just because a category of published media might be generally notable does not mean that there is a notable award relating to the category. Sometimes there aren't any awards, and sometimes the "most notable" award (however that's measured) doesn't meet Wikipedia standards of notability. As is the case here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've refused to budge from your Keep vote despite it being shown that the film has not won an award and being distributed by major porn studio does not mean it passes WP:NOTFILM. To refute yet another untruth, I have never claimed to have engineered WP:NOTFILM. Epbr123 (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Epbr123. This AfD is 93kb long, longer than the recent Bulbasaur AfD and 17x longer than the article itself. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 20:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Epbr123 created the stubs for Eric Swiss, Aletta Ocean, Anthony Crane, and Eric Masterson (pornographic actor), which rely only on a less-notable award for their existence. He worked on WP:PORNBIO which includes award as criterion of notability. This film won a major award, and was produced by a major film studio, not a porn studio. The length of the discussion may have something to do with the fact so many Delete rationales run contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and are applied with a double standard. And that the nominator, who has basically contributed no content to Wikipedia himself, targeted and ridiculed my work for no apparent reason, and despite no previous interaction, then went on a mass-attack (not a verbal comparison with other work, but an actual attempt to destroy). Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an extract from the targeting and ridiculing: What i have a problem with is a bunch of fanboys scrabbling around filing [sic] wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible, and then complaining when someone takes notice and tries to clean up after them. I mean look at this articles created list: [83] which includes vital encyclopedia content like Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs, Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil and Continuous Adultery 2: A Portrait of Incest between Sisters. The wanking community needs less input on content here, not more. (My emphases.) Within that, wanking community is obvious unspeak, but he's lost me with clean up (wikify? clear of spelling mistakes? nominate for deletion?) and input on content. The whole utterance is too incoherent to merit anyone's concern, I suggest. -- Hoary (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I grant you the incoherence. The intent was made clear though, with the AfD'ing of five such articles. Shall we take bets on the next five? Dekkappai (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What would Basil Marceaux think? -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's what became of Bolton? Or possibly The Lorax? Dekkappai (talk) 22:14, 8 August 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.
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 no consensus. I do not see a consensus on the reference to the award. The fact that it is in Japanese does not help. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness[edit]

Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" eight place in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." That's called coming in eighth, not "winning." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM, etc... Bali ultimate (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, now I'm getting pissed off... Delete and Ban Creator Strongly Warn Creator for spamming. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the contributions history of the creator, this is not a new spammer. There does, however, need to be a chainsaw taken to many, many other similar articles, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Carrite, when another very recent AfD has clear evidence of spamming and nobody else praises the result (I'm the closest, with a very reluctant, eye-rolling "keep"), you write "Keep - Well-done article about an accomplished artist". Now, where was it that I should deploy my chainsaw? -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this article cites mainly the web site P*G Website -- it is not obvious to me that this is a reliable source adequate to verify content or establish notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOTFILM, and has no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [84], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Let's tone down the invective and allegations a bit and look at the facts instead. The film in question is an example of Japanese softcore pink film. This type of film has played an important part in Japanese film history and has been a factor in Japanese culture and politics. The reference [85] that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz cites above is an article by pink film authority Jasper Sharp and gives a good overview of the role that pink film has played in Japanese culture and its growing popularity internationally. Read the article to get a better understanding of where this particular Wikipedia article and others of its kind come from. Sharp has also written a serious study of pink film Behind the Pink Curtain, 2008, (ISBN 978 1 903254 54 7) and although in the article mentioned above, Sharp does in passing call PG a "fanzine", he is more explicit in his book describing it as a (page 379): "Specialist Japanese magazine on pink films, edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida, established in July 1994." And about the magazine's PG website, which has been brought into question, he has this to say (page 380): "The website of the best magazine on the subject. An invaluable, comprehensive and up-to-date resource on pink movies edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida." Thus, we have a reliable and authoritative source vouching for both PG magazine and the PG website. As for the Pink Grand Prix, Miho Toda in a series of articles [86] [87] [88] for a reliable source, calls them the Pink Film "Academy Awards" (アカデミー賞). As far as the film not being a first prize winner, if the awarding authorities from "the best magazine on the subject" choose to give awards to more than one candidate, we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". That would involve cultural bias, POV and OR to make such decisions. In summary, this is a film which has won a significant award given by a prominent magazine and is described in a reliable source. I know of no connection between PG magazine and the [sic] "porn-marketting machine in japan"; if there is one, a source would be welcomed. Incidentally, pink film has always been produced and distributed by the major film studios in Japan. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable title with lots of puff based on a single non-reliable reference source. "8th place" in a reader poll really is insignificant. And English title appears to have been made up by the author to boot. --DAJF (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Pink film is a hugely significant part of Japanese cinema, and has been for nearly 50 years. It is, basically, all Japanese independent cinema. To equate it with US/western "porn" is culturally biased and ignorant, and nominating this article based on that bias is tantamount to attempting to censor coverage of Japanese independent cinema. Read the Pink film article for details. Many significant figures in Japanese cinema have worked in this genre. Just one example: Yōjirō Takita, the winner of last year's U.S. Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film started in this genre, made a hugely significant contribution to the genre, and this work is a significant portion of his work. The Pink Grand Prix is currently the main award in the genre. Anglo pink film scholar Jasper Sharp, and mainstream Japanese sources have noted this in several writings cited in the article. All films awarded at this ceremony are notable simply due to this one award. To claim they are not is to make a laughing-stock Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and encyclopedic coverage. Also, this film was directed by Tetsuya Takehora, one of the most significant new directors in the genre, and produced by OP Eiga. Read the article on that studio for some background. Are we to censor this because of the belligerent ignorance of a few Anglo prudes? I will add more here, but the fact that Bali ultimate-- a proud bigot-- has got votes in his corner-- besides the obvious Hullaballoo-- is truly disgusting. I strongly suggest that anyone who purports to be interested in creating an encyclopedia which includes Japanese cinema as a subject area, review their !votes. Because I can tell you for your, your Delete vote is WRONG here. This is nothing less than an effort to censor an entire genre of Japanese cinema based on the cultural and moral bias of a few Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per comprehensive rationale of Cherryblossom1982, and strongly warn Carrite about personal attacks-comment on the article, not the editor.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasoned comments above, as notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Western (or personal) POV should never be used to negatively color discussion of Eastern film, Eastern art, or Eastern culture, as cultural standards greatly vary. Calling something from another country "obscure" is a bit much, as WP:UNKNOWNHERE is not a criteria for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pink film is notable, many specific pink films are notable, I accept the award as apparently notable, and I appreciate that there are articles on them. I'd like to see more thorough coverage of pornography on Wikipedia. This specific film is not WP-notable, however. The film is lacking the sort of significant coverage from Reliable sources and consequent verifiability one would want for an encyclopedia article. Instead of prose following the topics in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) there are bare statements of fact as to having gotten the award, the cast, crew, and a brief plot outline, essentially WP:PLOTONLY apart from a short lede. If that's all that can be written, then that's a problem. Merely winning an award is not a guarantee a film is notable by WP's standards Wikipedia:Notability (films), only a general indicator it might be if there are RS for things other than the mere fact of winning the award. It's the existence of RS treating the film as the subject at length that is the measure of WP-notability. This film could be better treated in a list of films that won the award, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not going to repeat my arguments another time just because somebody who gets regulary his own sections on ANI started a mass deletion campaign[89] simply based on a massive lack of WP:NPOV as already shown. Testales (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. The Pink Grand Prix is not a "major award", and coming eighth place is not an award win anyway. Epbr123 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have pointed out, NFILMS is used to show when it is expected that coverage will exist. In this case there is doubt whether NFILMS applies (8th place being called an award win?). As such, we should look in more depth to see whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. These sources do not seem to be available so the article should be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • 'Is it 8th out of 8? Or 8th or of 1000? I cannot read Japanese. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to my detailed argument above for "Older Officer Lady." This seems to be position 8 in the top 10, out of about 100-150 a year, It would intrinsically seem reasonable to me that the 10 best films in a major genre like these would be suitable of coverage in an encyclopedia, not just the best one of the year. Not reading Japanese, I assume the statement is correct that the sources do show this is the major award in the subject DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as has been suggested. I'm concerned about the paucity of sources and the notability of the awards. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's been mentioned that besides being named among the Top Ten, the film also has a performance which won a Best New Actress award: Kaho Kasumi. Dekkappai (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness" is surely as splendid a movie title as Happiness is a red before exploding is a book title. True, the latter is plainly printed in crimson on white whereas the former has merely been inferred from the Japanese (perhaps with the aid of dictionary and beer) but the wording can be further improved. ¶ Now, what's the nomination again? The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. But I think that at least one of the two is supposed to be "mature", so this should be "pretty women's titties". ¶ Pretty Woman! Now that (with simulated blowjob) is real schlock; surely Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness can't be worse. (For starters, viewers won't be subjected to Roy Orbison.) One way in which this article is certainly better than that one is its refreshingly concise synopsis; compare its "Sakura is a young woman who begins exploring her sexuality while preparing for university life" with "[blah blah blah] His leaping from the white limousine, and then climbing the outside ladder and steps, is a visual urban metaphor for the knight on white horse rescuing the "princess" from the tower, a childhood fantasy she'd told him about. The film ends as the two of them kiss on the fire escape." Ack! ¶ Minor but adequate notability adequately sourced: an aching keep, and let it either mature or (since it's harmless) stay as it is. -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Synopses are another matter... I've always preferred a one- or two-sentence general idea of the setting and story. The experts over at Film Project, however, have determined the exact amount of words necessary for a proper synopsis-- and it's a lot. I've done a full one over at Bitter Sweet, but I don't like doing that that. But again, it's what the experts have deemed correct... On the other hand, since the experts over at Porn project have deemed the winning of a notable award to be proof of notability when covering their own area, but not when it's about Japanese subjects they've never heard of, resulting in hundreds of sub-stubs on good, red-blooded Americans, while much more significant Japanese subjects come under attack, one begins to wonder about the, ah, expertise, shall we say?, of these experts... Dekkappai (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further evidence of the authority of Hayashida Yoshiyuki-- editor and publisher of P*G, and host of the Pink Grand Prix-- in the area of Pink film. He is the co-author of the books:
    Generation sex : Japanese "pink" movie posters
    女優林由美香 / Joyū Hayashi Yumika on the life of Pink film (and AV) actress Yumika Hayashi Dekkappai (talk) 18:23, 7 August 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.
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 Speedy delete. 02:32, 3 August 2010 Rlevse (talk | contribs) deleted "Vesuvius number nine" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesuvius number nine no refs, prob hoax, etc) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vesuvius number nine[edit]

Vesuvius number nine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic, childish and non-notable but appears to escape Speedy Deletion criteria. Ben MacDui 13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was intending to do an WP:IAR deletion, but instead since there is now an AFD I will vote delete, no chance at notability and original research. There are no ghits off Wikipedia for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing outside of Wikipedia and may or may not be eligible for G3. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No independent references, no widespread significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Close enough to vandalism to qualify. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete easily a speedy del, but in any case, no references given, or found, indicating notability. nothing in the article would lead anyone to suspect it was truly notable. if this is the best the article creator/supporters can find as sources, then it has no hope.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROTFL delete No references. BE——Critical__Talk 23:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE DONT ROTFL HERE! THATS GROSS!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a decrepit latrine isn't exactly significant; almost every latrine I've been in was decrepit, or worse than that. Aside for the extremely rare incident that a latrine will have significant coverage (there was a joke about this in DYK for April Fool's once), this ain't going to be notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete. Who had this much free time? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted this speedy, non notable, prob hoax, no refs, etc. And note and I'm coordinator emeritus of the Scouting project. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 3 August 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.
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. Courcelles 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits 2 (album title TBA)[edit]

Greatest Hits 2 (album title TBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TenPoundHammer's Law: If the name and track order aren't known yet, it's too soon for the article. Even with a band as significant as Bon Jovi, a rumored or planned project may never become a realized project. When (if) the album is released, the article can be created then. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 31 July 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.
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 Keep. While the article may not be written optimally right now, it seems that Wells is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article under current general and specific notability guides. NW (Talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)[edit]

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to Wikipedia's "General Notability Guidelines" WP:GNG an topic needs to have been covered in depth in secondary sources before an article is possible. This article (as of now) has 67 sources cited. However they are all primary sources. One group is Dr. Wells' own writings and websites of organizations he is affiliated with. The other is writings of people who disagree with him and are telling us why his theories are wrong. As far as I can see there is no secondary source which gives general information on him in a neutral way. As important as he may be I don't see how this article is possible under WP's stated policies and guidelines. Wolfview (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hmm, wow. (Disclaimer: I am a member of the Unification Church, along with Jonathan. I personally think he is barking up the wrong tree. God did create the Universe, but He used regular science to do it -- not special creation science.) Having said that, this article does have problems but it has improved a lot over the last couple of years. I myself have written articles putting together scraps from different sources. That's not ideal but in this case the information seems to be accurate and a person having read the article will know something about him. He is well known enough to merit an article here.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I myself have written articles putting together scraps from different sources." That sounds like WP:Original research to me. Wolfview (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the article I had in mind: Religion Newswriters Association. 22 sources, but none (except for the organization's own website) that cover it in depth. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfview, I've had disagreements with Steve in the past, mostly regarding POV issues, but he does try to write good articles and the method of which he speaks seems OK to me, at least to start off...see my comment below. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy's just not notable Czolgolz (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wells is a prominent member of the intelligent design movement. His book Icons of Evolution and related material makes him meet WP:CREATIVE under 1 and 4c. Moreover, the claim by the nominator is slightly misleading in that much of the material by his opponents is in fact in peer reviewed literature and thus are reliable sources. Such sources in the article include Brauer and Forrest's article in the Washington University Law Quarterly, and the article by Pennock in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, and there are other articles of a similar nature which are not currently used as sources. There are other sources in the article which while not focusing directly on Wells are also clearly reliable sources from independent individuals. For example, the Vancouver Sun article discusses his denial of the HIV-AIDS connection. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say that the publications were bad or unreliable. But still I don't see even one that gives general information about Wells. Most seem to be opinion pieces to refute his ideas -- hence primary sources, as are Wells own writings. I don't think an article "Jonathan Wells in his own words" would fly. Nor would "Why Jonathan Wells's theories are wrong." So I don't think you can put the two together to make one article. Wolfview (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't question his prominance, just the lack of secondary sources to justify an article here.Wolfview (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AFD is not for cleanup. The subject satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are needed as well as a notable subject, according to WP's own policies. Wolfview (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is a very well-done article, written in a neutral tone. You may think the man a wackidoodle, but this is not about whether the theories and writings of the subject are kooky, only whether he is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as a notable public figure. He is. Carrite (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with all marginally notable BLPs this carries too much potential for mischief. (I don't buy into the "flagged revisions will solve all of our problems!" argument.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to his book(s) might be a better option? Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. I used the same argument against another kook, (who, I believe, was decided to be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER, although not otherwise under WP:GNG or WP:PROF), and now believe that the argument does more harm than good. WP:CREATIVE seems to make this kook notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes, the sourcing is weak (I hadn't realise how weak - times change, standards change, but not every article keeps up) but Forrest & Gross and Migliucci's books are reliable secondary sources. And he does pass WP:GNG. Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Undeniably notable, and the sourcing appears to be passable though it could use some improvements. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and shorten, using basic facts. The article is obviously edited by people with a strong POV against creationism and his religion, and who seem to have some personal animosity towards him. Wells has some respectable credentials, and has written a couple of controversial books. He is not even a young earth creationist. I really do not think that it is notable that he once signed an online AIDS petition in 1991 or that he defended his religion's views on marriage. There is not even any need to spell out various criticisms of him. Any simple neutral description of his books will make it obvious that he is disagreeing with some mainstream scientific views. There are plenty of other WP articles on those scientific issues. Roger (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are specific problems falling under our biographies of living persons policy we should address them. Deleting the article doesn't seem necessary at this point, however. Wells is a fairly well known figure in a field of pseudoscience and we have ample sources for at least a start level article about him. Should Wells himself ask for the article to be deleted that could conceivably change things. Absent such a request, we should keep and improve the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) copied from talk page as requested dave souza, talk 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep as clearly notable person, the article can be improved. . dave souza, talk 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Well known figure in the field of pseudoscience, though sourcing is weak.TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable crank. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NNDB deems him notable. --Yopienso (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They also say he was born in 1956, when WP's article says he was in the United States Army in 1966. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the problem with articles based on "scraps." Wolfview (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominator saying he's "important". If the only reason to delete is a technicality, then maybe we need to change the rules. He's probably the world's foremost opponent of naturalistic evolution, and if we delete the article on him then opponents of evolution will find it much harder to locate anti-evolution arguments. There's enough Wikipedia:censorship of alternate POV's as it is. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, surely you mean he's one of the bunch of leading proponentsists of supernaturalistic anti-evolution? No need for a red link ;-) . dave souza, talk 20:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The world's foremost opponent? Really? He's high up on the list of intelligent design proponents but I'd be very curious as to what metric makes him the "the world's foremost opponent of naturalistic evolution" with contenders including Ken Ham, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I exaggerated, but if he's high up on the list of intelligent design proponents, then we can close this with a speedy keep. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the issue of lack of reliable secondary sources has not been addressed, even if we all know how important he is. Wolfview (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We do not delete articles because of a percieved lack of secondary sources, we find the secondary sources and add them. Honestly, that's really how it works. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happens if secondary sources are not found? The article was started in 2004. Here is the first version.Wolfview (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm...you're an editor too, right? Your job, like mine, is to improve the articles on wiki, right? Have you looked for sources or did you just nominate it for deletion? The reality is this: Wells is most certainly notable and merits an article. You just might have to dig around for sources. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just spent some time checking Google news, books, and scholar. I found books by Wells and some news stories that mention him or quote him, but nothing much that tells us anything about him. Wolfview (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And? There's stuff out there, but what are you looking for? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 04:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something that gives "significant coverage," as required by WP:GNG.Wolfview (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable crank - oops - I mean person. Improve refs rather than delete. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Attack page. If you look at the original article it's fairly clear that the purpose was to discredit Wells. A lot has been added since (including some sources) but still there seems to be a negative slant. Also his notability is not asserted. The article starts by saying he's an author but then goes into his religion. I don't think an article on a notable author, say Orson Scott Card, would start out: "Orson Scott Card is a science fiction author. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, he has said the teachings of his religion have been an inspiration for his work..." Borock (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked out Card's article. The intro does mention his religion, but it also tells us why he is important as an author -- something this article does not. Borock (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was not intended to discredit Wells nor does it do so. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think a reasonable person could disagree, based on the original page: [90]. Borock (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, do you think that revision should be deleted? I see no way a reasonable person could believe that the current page is an attack page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The main points the original page made, that he wrote an unscientific book and that he belongs to the Unification Church (or as it put it a "Moony"), are still the main points made by the current article. Just more detail has been added, plus the thing of him having signed an anti-AIDS petition in the 1990s.Borock (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we should avoid the truth when it is distasteful (to even 'one' editor)? Nothing in this article is untrue. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia BLP policy is not mainly about "the truth." Borock (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • not "mainly". eh? F the encyclopdedic attempts to be accurate, yes? Reality sux so they say. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 06:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Truth and reality are the goals, but they have to be filtered through WP policies, like WP:N WP:RS and WP:BLP, before they are reported in an article.Wolfview (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I say that the article is an attack page. It has some very silly things in it, such as repeating some ad hominem attacks from a debate opponent. It is obvious that a debate opponent disagrees with Wells, and we don't need WP to tell us that the debate opponent badmouthed him. Roger (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's actually another example of the weakness of the sources, if you have to quote one person's opinion about another person to find something to fill up the article.Wolfview (talk) 16:03, 7 August 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.
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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon (1–20)[edit]

List of Pokémon (1–20) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fork of List of Pokémon which already provides a better and complete list of Pokemon. The basis of selection of numbers 1-20 is arbitrary, not supported by reliable sources and so not notable. Suggesting that there is some special relationship between these numbers is improper synthesis as this specific selection is not supported by reliable sources. It is purely a creation of Wikipedia editors and so is improper original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that sections of the Pokemon as a whole are not notable, or that 1-20, 21-40, etc isn't the way to do it, and should be changed? Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am suggesting that a list of 20 arbitrary Pokemon is obviously redundant to the complete list of all of them and so should be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be like deleting List of Mario series characters and making a table list of all the characters. It is silly and should not be done. These characters deserve list sections just as much. List of Pokémon is a WP:DIRECTORY of the numbered lists. Both can, and will, exist together. There have been many deletion discussions on these lists, and they have all resulted in keep for a reason. Doing it again and again every year wont change the facts. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding your point about Mario. That game series seems to have a single list and that's what I'm suggesting we should confine ourselves to here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has one list, but it has paragraphs of text. If all 500+ Pokemon had pharagraphs of text in one article, that would be way too long. This is split up in a reasonable way. We have talked at WikiProject Pokemon about merging them into lists of 50 instead of 20. The discussions kept dieing though. Would you be ok with that? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is a needed fork, the List of Pokémon has only the basic one line of information on each Pokémon while this one goes into more detail about each one. The purpose of this list is so you can have a paragraph or two of each Pokémon without having to create an article for each one. The numbering isn't arbitrary. It is (1-20) because that was what was decided was the perfect amount of Pokemon for the list so it wouldn't be too small or too large. There are approx. 100 references so there is no problem with notability or original research. I see no reason for deletion. Tavix |  Talk  18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This allows appropriate coverage of a notable franchise while meeting WP:LENGTH. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. List of Pokémon was divided into lists like this one to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Article size. No original research here. Theleftorium (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Point-making AfD created by user who is vocally opposed to the merging. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current Pokémon lists provide a good balance between the need to allow for expansion and the need to keep page sizes reasonable. In fact, if we were to merge all of the existing Pokémon lists into one megalist, the potential loading time of that megalist over a slow dial-up internet connection could potentially annoy readers who use such internet connections. Furthermore, the idea of restricting coverage of the group of all Pokémon species to a mere table just doesn't make sense considering the notability of the Pokémon franchise. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Pokemon list is a navigational tool, this and the others in the set are a good compromise which allows WP to cover the critters without having an article each unless the sourcing is available to support one. Someoneanother 04:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SoCalSuperEagle. Also, I'd argue that this list is what makes List of Pokémon useful, not the other way around. – sgeureka t•c 08:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - WP:POINT and WP:SNOW --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - bad-faith nomination by a user who isn't getting his way over at another AfD, trying to do an end-around of the likely result there. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comprehensive listing. Not too large for article sizing. No issue here. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:46, 4 August 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.
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 Redirect to Stalking#Stalking by groups. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cause stalking[edit]

Cause stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The objective reality of the phenomenon described in this has serious verifiability problems:

  • the first book reference checked looks like a self-published work: Google Books page images of it, which give an email address with the author's name as the contact for its publisher, appear to confirm this.
  • the NVAA web page linked for another reference appears not to contain either of the two terms that it is claimed as supporting.
  • A third reference is to a book which is not available online, so cannot be checked.
  • The single news story is to a person who believes this is real; the news story itself does not appear to state that this is a real phenomenon.

Now, there might be a place for an article about the very real phenomenon of people believing that they are being stalked by shadowy conspiracies, but this isn't it: if it were to be created, it should be at gang stalking, the common name for this subject, as demonstrated by the news stories that have decribed the belief in it by that name while taking great care not to assert the objective reality of the reported phenomena.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and Talk:Gang stalking for much, much more discussion of this subject.

That this article was created by User:Jeremystalked, an apparent single-purpose POV-pushing account devoted to similar questionable phenomena, is not encouraging, either: see their talk page for their mission statement, including the statement that "Wikipedia is just another disinformation outlet helping to blame the victims of government-sanctioned torture." The Anome (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Gimme a chance and i will research into all this. --Penbat (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks! Since filing this AfD, I've been trimming out the references to either non-supporting or non-RS sources and replacing them by {{fact}}, but the version of the article at the point where I filed this AfD is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cause_stalking&oldid=376401736

      Note that none is this is to assert that real-world stalking by groups of people does not happen: that's already well covered in the stalking article in the Stalking#Stalking_by_groups section. However, the purported phenomenon of "gang stalking", with its common features of vastly-well-resourced and ubiquitous teams of organized "observers" with access to mysterious psychotronic weapons, is a different matter entirely. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've also removed the following reference per WP:UNDUE: "Stopping a Stalker: A Cop's Guide to Making the System Work for You" by Robert L. Snow, ISBN 978-0738206271, pp. 85-88 -- the views about "gang stalking" in this seem not to be representative of the law enforcement community at large, as evidenced by this (complimentary) Amazon review, apparently from a gang stalking believer, saying " Police Officer Captain Robert Snow is the only police officer that we know of who recognizes the existence of stalking groups. [The rest of the Law Enforcement Community still on denial]."
This leaves just the one definite WP:RS reference, in the form of the KENS 5 news story that carefully does not make any assertions about the reality of the alleged phenomenon, and, although it does use the term "gang stalking" does not anywhere use the term "cause stalking." -- The Anome (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stalking. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary tells us that we should not have articles on words or expressions. The fact that a group can stalk an individual should be mentioned in the article on stalking, the name for it does not need its own article. Wolfview (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless, of course, the name denotes a particular type of stalking that is extensively covered in the literature, which is exactly what Penbat and The Anome have put the effort in to find out. You can help by … well … helping. Do some research to find out whether, indeed, this is a subject that the world has reliably and properly documented. If it is a properly and fully documented subject, it warrants an article. If it isn't even an alternative name for a documented subject, then it doesn't even warrant a redirect. But we only know by doing the research. And we only know with a degree of certainty when multiple editors at AFD do the research independently, each double-checking the others. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Initial thoughts: Both "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" have a few references in Google scholar but not many. Mobbing is a well established concept and it is self-evident that mobbing on a wider scale (such as at the community level and national level) may exist using mechanisms such as demonization and persecution as for example the Jews were in WW2. But it is confusing to think of gang stalking and cause stalking as varieties of stalking, might have been better if they were called gang mobbing and cause mobbing. Anyway at this level you are more in the realm of belief systems rather than demonstrable scientific fact, it ties in with concepts such and the Illuminati and the ideas of Alex Jones etc. We are not necessarily dealing with way out conspiracy theorists here and i personally find quite a few of the ideas to be quite plausible.

      Personally i would have articles on both "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" but more as plausible belief systems that tie in with some other related Wikipedia articles (such as Illuminati and Alex Jones), rather than expecting them to stand up to much academic scrutiny. That is not to say that they couldnt stand up to academic scrutiny, just that it is probably difficult to formulate academic research in this area. But believers in the Illuminati, "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" will offer tons of evidence supporting their view, but others may then provide evidence to the contrary.

      We currently have an article called Structural abuse i notice which is quite closely related but I think it implies that it might be unintentional state abuse.--Penbat (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just to add that "gang stalking" gives about 46000 google results and "cause stalking" gives about 12000 google results.--Penbat (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're quite right: both "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" are the subjects of much discussion on the Internet, and there are numerous websites devoted to them. The question here is whether they actually have any existence in reality, outside the minds of those advocating their existence. I think there are two things we can do here: one is to write a gang stalking article based on the only reliable sources I've been able to find so far, which refer to it solely in terms of being a belief system, or to avoid writing an article of any sort until we can find reliable sources that say otherwise. -- The Anome (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Im not too sure what RS means for belief systems. There are quite a few notable people (some who have Wiki entries) who believe in the illuminati and will provide supporting evidence. Similar people would probably support and provide evidence for cause and gang stalking. The current "cause stalking" article is short of citations and maybe largely OR, "gang stalking" probably was the same but i never saw it and the talk page is no longer visible. Surely a citation from any notable advocate of these ideas is acceptable as is a citation from anybody notable who rejects the ideas. --Penbat (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're not missing out. The only actual sources cited in the Gang stalking (AfD discussion) article at the time of its nomination for deletion were the DOJ WWW site already mentioned in this discussion, and a self-published book by one David Lawson. (By the end of the AFD discussion, the article had degenerated into a lengthy rant against various Usenet newsgroups. We should regard ourselves as fortunate that articles generally improve when changed at AFD, nowadays.) Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the NVAA web page linked for another reference appears not to contain either of the two terms that it is claimed as supporting." The link ( [91] ) says: "Vengeance stalkers do not seek a personal relationship with their targets. Rather, vengeance/terrorist stalkers attempt to elicit a particular response or a change of behavior from their victims. When vengeance is their prime motive, stalkers seek only to punish their victims for some wrong they perceive the victim has visited upon them. In other words, they use stalking as a means to "get even" with their enemies... A second type of vengeance or terrorist stalker, the political stalker, has motivations that parallel those of more traditional terrorists. That is, stalking is a weapon of terror used to accomplish a political agenda. Utilizing the threat of violence to force the stalking target to engage in or refrain from engaging in particular activity. For example, most prosecutions in this stalking category have been against anti-abortionists who stalk doctors in an attempt to discourage the performance of abortions."

    Just search the text of the page for "vengeance" or "terror".Jeremystalked(law 296) 17:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, the page you cite above certainly does talk about "vengeance stalking": it does not, however, either mention, or make any link to, "cause stalking" or "gang stalking", the subject of this article. -- The Anome (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an apparent single-purpose POV-pushing account devoted to similar questionable phenomena..."[92] First of all, I'm not the only person who expresses the view that Wikipedia has serious biases, even on Wikipedia. Second, are you saying for the record that if someone is determined to flood Wikipedia with disinformation, they must psychopathically create an account that appears to be interested in several unrelated topics?Jeremystalked(law 296) 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only "bias" we have here is the requirement for verifiability from multiple reliable third-party sources; see WP:V. Since you are making the assertion that this phenomenon exists, the burden of proof rests with you. Cites, please. -- The Anome (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the third book isn't available online..."[93] Look again, buddy. [94]Jeremystalked(law 296) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant that previous of its text are not available online. If you want to cite it as a reference, please give us page numbers and brief quotes of the relevant portions that directly support your assertions. -- The Anome (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of cause stalking vs. gang stalking[edit]

  • Terrorist stalking by anti-abortionists in the US is notable, has several mainstream media references, and the only question is what to call it. I chose "cause stalking". "Terrorist stalking" would also be acceptable, IMO. Gang Stalking, as everyone here is aware, is not notable as Wikipedia defines notability. However, at least one editor has created a redirect for it.[95] Clearly it is a subject that some users of Wikipedia are interested in, and it's worth breaking the rules (WP:IAR) to at least create an accurate redirect for gang stalking - pointing to (as I've suggested) cause stalking, which most closely resembles what people interested in the topic of Gang Stalking would expect.Jeremystalked(law 296) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is reinforcing the point that pretty much all the manifestations of abuse are infinately scalable from a 1 to 1 relationship all the way up to global warfare, the psychology is pretty much the same anywhere up the scale. It also looks like you are getting hung up on abuse type labels - now we have something called "terror stalking" when "terrorism" covers that ground. In the UK we had animal-rights extremists damaging homes of people who work at animal labs - similar to your anti-abortionists. Abuse-type labels tend to overlap with each other, so one person may use one label, another person may use another. You are just covering abuse higher up the scale (at the community level) than is often the case but the same concepts - such as humiliation, intimidation, stalking etc still apply at any part of the scale. Also any one incidence of abuse is likely to combine several abuse type labels as a mix.--Penbat (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay then, why not just file every conceivable type of abuse under one Wikipedia article, abuse? While we're at it, let's file every kind of crime under crime. Perhaps we could merge them into a single article, crime or abuse. Just to be clear, I'm being sarcastic.

        Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but there is clearly a need to distinguish between different kinds of crimes, abuses, psychological concepts, and so on, for the benefit of the layman. So then, the question is, does 'cause stalking' deserve attention separate from religious terrorism, christian terrorism, or stalking? I would say yes:

        1. . It can't simply be classified as religious terrorism, as Lawson asserts that cause stalking groups have branched out.
        2. . It can't simply be classified as stalking, either, because there is that overlap with religious terrorism.
      • Okay, so let's say the topic is worthy of a separate article. What to call it?

        While anti-abortion terrorists have gotten into the news for overt acts of violence, the cause stalking Lawson talks about more closely resembles classical stalking behavior, with covert violence against a target. (Stalking cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.) Anyone who was experiencing or reporting on what Lawson is talking about would immediately classify it as a form of stalking, only picking up on the psychological torture and terroristic aspects much later.

        So even though it's really terrorism, it would not be obvious as such to a disinterested third party - that is, a layman. And it is the layman these articles are being prepared for. I think it is best to stick with a form of stalking as the label.Jeremystalked(law 296) 20:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On making it an article about victims' beliefs[edit]

  • Torture victims who have been forcibly thrust into a world of disinformation and psychological operations, and who don't have a firm grasp on economics, the laws of physics, and so on - are not the best people to be citing on this subject. I am deeply concerned that taking this approach to the article would result in the most outlandish claims being given undue weight as a form of disinformation. In fact, this very approach has been taken on the Masonic conspiracy theories page, where the most incredible claims drown out very real concerns about corruption and subversion of governmental institutions (as an example).

    In this and previous discussions about deletion of gang stalking related articles, the biases and naivete of Wikipedian editors are on public display. Above, The_Anome naively buys into the disinformation surrounding these campaigns when he talks about "vastly-well-resourced and ubiquitous teams of organized observers".[96] A large group of people would be able to plan much further ahead than a single person, who might be living from paycheck to paycheck. Getting the money to buy a house next to the target might be a simple matter of passing the collection plate at a large church. Or it might be regarded as a non-trivial expenditure, but the house can be sold or rented out later when the target has been hounded out of the area - net expenditure: $0. Basically, very little of what's going on in these campaigns has to cost a dime. You're just not looking at these things with the proper perspective.Jeremystalked(law 296) 22:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please re-read WP:V; if you want to assert that this is a real phenomenon, you need to provide provide multiple independent reports of the existence of these alleged conspiracies, from sources that meet the reliable sources criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not talking about WP:V. I'm talking about what you said.[97] Kindly refrain from presenting outlandish claims as representative of what all targets think in the future.Jeremystalked(law 296) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, since you've asked about plausbility, let me put it this way. Why would anyone bother to do this? If a group of people wanted to hurt someone, there are far cheaper, simpler, and more brutal ways to do so involving direct intimidation and physical violence.

          Believing that, firstly, you are important enough to other people that your enemies would attack you in a way that was complex, subtle, imperceptible to outsiders, and very expensive (in time and resources, for which money is a proxy) and then to believe that the whole rest of the world, including Wikipedia, is in on a conspiracy to cover it up, makes for a poor null hypothesis. Applying the Copernican principle to oneself is a far more parsimonious null hypothesis.

          You use the term "targets". I presume that this means you consider this phenomenon to be objectively real. Can you tell me why you do so? Did you read about it somewhere, or hear about it from someone else? If so, why do you believe them? Or do you believe, from your own personal experience, that you yourself are a target of this activity? If so, how would you show an unbiased third party that that was not a delusional belief?

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please provide some! -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • I didn't say "the whole rest of the world, including Wikipedia, is in on a conspiracy to cover it up".[98] I am not claiming that, nor do I believe it. You are ascribing ideas to me that I do not have. I find your desire to get me to defend ideas I don't have to be odd, to say the least. Keep your slander out of this deletion debate, and I can have a civil discussion with you about the merits of this article. As it is, you're coming across as biased and prejudiced in this discussion.Jeremystalked(law 296) 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm glad to hear that you don't believe that Wikipedia is in on a conspiracy. Can I assume that, since we should assume good faith on both sides, you are now no doubt ready to abide by Wikipedia's terms of engagement, and provide the multiple reports from independent third-party reliable sources required to support the assertions in the article? -- The Anome (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was under the impression that Lawson's book actually made it past a publisher. The reason for the odd format of the book jacket is that the edition published in 2007 (there's a prior book by him in 2001, Terrorist Stalking in America, ISBN 0-9703092-0-1) is a sort of "survival guide" which is meant to be carried in a pocket. So basically, I can save the article from deletion if this impression is correct, and I can provide quotes supporting the article?Jeremystalked(law 296) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I think you may be mistaken about that. The name part of the publisher's contact e-mail address given on page 4 of that book (see Google Books for a preview) is the same as that of the author; the WHOIS records of the domain part of that e-mail address also show both the technical and administrative contacts to be a person of that name. -- The Anome (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • One thing that's definitely true is that this publisher (Scrambling Press) doesn't have a presence on the web. So maybe there was a third party publisher, but it went out of business between 2007 and now. How to handle this?Jeremystalked(law 296) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Given apparent objective evidence that strongly suggests the book is most likely self-published, the burden of proof now rests on you to demonstrate that it was published by an entity that meets the WP:RS criteria. Also, just to make it clear: the "you" in the comment mentioning the Copernican hypothesis is a generic "you", referring to any hypothetical believer of that belief, and not referring to you personally. -- The Anome (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What are the reliable sources on this topic (referring to peoples' beliefs about gang stalking) you have? Are you referring to the newspaper articles (Mind Games in the Washington Post, etc)?Jeremystalked(law 296) 06:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes. There are more newpaper articles like that out there: there are good references to at least two of them buried somewhere in Wikipedia's history. I can either dig for those, or try to rediscover them. -- The Anome (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Google News Archive Search is a good tool for finding things like this. The Washington Post "Mind Games" article is at
    • Sharon Weinberger (January 14, 2007). "Mind Games". Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  • There is another interesting article at
  • It cites Vaughn Bell, who may also be a good WP:RS if I can find any peer-reviewed publications by him.
  • which is behind a paywall, appears from its intro to be a duplicate of the New York Times article. -- The Anome (talk)
  • Update: Bell has an extensive publication list: see http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=10947#academic I haven't got time to search through all of these at the moment, but I think they would be a good place to start. -- The Anome (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, at this point I'm convinced making an article which focuses on accusations of delusional beliefs or mental illness from the authorities is the wrong way to go. It would be like going back to 1972, shortly before the MKULTRA experiments were exposed, and publishing articles about how people believing government agents kidnapping and torturing them were delusional. That's not something I would want on my conscience.
    • It's like saying there are (as we know there are) mentally ill people who believe they are really the President of the United States. Should we amend President of the United States to focus on their delusions? Obviously not, as even if some of those delusions are WP:NOT, focusing on those delusions would be WP:UNDUE.
    • You might say, well, there are lots of claims from alleged cause stalking victims which don't appear to make a lot of sense. But since none of those alleged victims' testimonies are WP:RS, all of the most outrageous and prominent publications on the subject could have been fabricated as a form of Disinformation, which I seem to recall the CIA has been known to do. There are many examples of hoaxes being given WP:UNDUE, such as certain wild claims the Masonic conspiracy theory page refers to. Using hoaxes to misdirect the public's attention from legitimate grievances is an obvious tactic.
    • Basically, I find your desire to dig up pages linking these claims to mental illness - even as you claim Snow's book can't be read online (it can) - to be interesting. I also find your nitpicking over terminology to defy WP:BURO. If I created a Terrorist Stalking or Vengeance Stalking page with essentially the same content and references, and redirected the Cause Stalking page to it, what would you do?
    • All that said, I would be satisfied with getting a mention of the phrase gang stalking (even in the context of delusional belief systems) into Stalking. Then those who want to learn more can Google away, whether to have a good chuckle or to rejoice at finding like-minded individuals. It wouldn't violate WP:V and it would improve Wikipedia.Jeremystalked(law 296) 03:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are welcome to write an article on gang stalking as a delusional belief system; there is no problem in doing so, since there are reliable sources for this. The problem would be the creation of an article suggesting that it is a real phenomenon. -- The Anome (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?[edit]

  • I notice way up the page that the Anome acknowledged the discussion concerning the reality of vengeance stalking and that is certainly a good source- why are you playing semantics and demanding to see the words cause or gang substituted for vengeance before it's good enough for you? Before that point I had assumed objectivity on your part, this inability to interpret words with a similar meaning now makes me wonder why you're being so obstructive here and felt that standing on semantics would be a legitimate position. Can you not see that each of these terms is simply a new term for Scapegoating? Why are you not on that page voiciferously protesting its existence? Or the Workplace bullying and Mobbing pages?

    It would seem you have a fixation on focusing on the mentally ill people on the internet and applying this fixation upon real issues, as the existence of the above 3 pages and the notable reference of vengeance stalking describe. Perhaps your editing efforts should be toward your interest in mental illness?Batvette (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Absolutely.Workplace bullying, mobbing and scapegoating are all real, and attested to by by reliable sources. Stalking by groups is a well-documented real phenomenon, and the term "vengeance stalker" is also well-defined, and in use by reliable sources.

      However, synthesizing the two last concepts above into an article called "cause stalking" or "gang stalking" constitutes original research. Belief in "gang stalking", in the sense commonly used on the Internet, is well documented in reliable sources, often in the context of discussions about delusional systems and conspiracy theories; searches for sources that attest to its actual existence in a way that meets WP:V have, as far as I can see, drawn a blank. -- The Anome (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think my point is that all of these forms of stalking by groups, workplace bullying, mobbing, scapegoating, group stalking, etc, are all the same thing and when it happens to people they don't know what to call it. You say "gang stalking in the sense commonly used on the internet" don't you really mean as displayed on the internet in various levels of credibility or lack thereof? Again you are implying this form of stalking is delusions on the part of victims by referring to people who are obviously delusional. So what is the difference between vengeance stalking, the other forms of stalking and bullying you concede is real, and cause/gang stalking as this editor is writing about? That we can now find some crazy people on the internet complaining of it? How does this affect the real issues and that this TYPE of behaviour in society is well known, no matter what the terminology currently in favor? It's obvious the development of the internet caused a venue for the delusional to validate their paranoia, and vent it as well and this does feed on itself, but that is another issue altogether.Batvette (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


      • Can I ask an additional explanation since you do seem to accept people can be stalked by groups of people, as evidenced in your comment above- why would a group of people stalk a person? Do you think a number of jilted male lovers who at various times dated the same person might somehow meet and decide to stalk their ex lover? One would think there might be insurmountable jealousy problems between them precluding such an alliance. Yet the Justice Dept stats shows this is happening in great numbers- it merely does not explain WHY they are being stalked. Perhaps you can tell us? Batvette (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you point me at the Justice Department information you referred to above? Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just read that report and can find nothing about ex-lovers ganging up to stalk anyone. If I've missed something could you please let us know what page it is on? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding the point he was making. Batvette's source mentions very large numbers of group stalking cases occurring in the United States. What is the profile of these stalking groups? What makes sense? Are these people trying to seek a personal relationship with their targets, or are they engaging in terrorist/vengeance stalking, otherwise known as cause stalking?Jeremystalked(law 296) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing ambiguous about Batvette's statement. The claim was that the report linked shows that "jilted male lovers who at various times dated the same person ... meet and decide to stalk their ex lover". I can understand that stement perfectly well, and can also see that the report says nothing of the kind. Again, can you please cite a page number in the report that "mentions very large numbers of group stalking cases occurring in the United States"? The only mention that I can find of victims having more than one stalker is appendix table 3 on page 12, and that says nothing about such stalkers acting in concert. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I goofed in the way I phrased that. When I said "yet the justice dept says this is happening in large numbers" I meant people who claim there are 2, 3, or more people they perceive to be stalking them- and of course the scenario of 3 jilted lovers getting together to stalk one person is preposterous. (might make a good sit-com tho, like Three's Company) So the point was if there are all these people being stalked by three people or more and yet the reason it's widely cited and accepted to be stalked by ONE person (some psycho male with a fixation on a woman) is almost certainly NOT the case with the multiple stalkers, I'd love to see someone come up with a plausible rationale on what would be going on there that does not resemble cause/gang stalking? Batvette (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

User:Jeremystalked has offered above to create a gang stalking article that refers to this in the context of being a delusional belief system, something for which I believe we have sufficient reliable sources.

I think a way forward would be to add this material to the persecutory delusion article, and also to create a pointer to it from the stalking article.

Note that this does not give carte blanche to creating an article that contains assertions not supported by reliable sources -- such as, for example, the subject of that belief system having objective reality -- any such material would be covered by the WP:V and WP:UNDUE criteria, and would be speedy-deletable for that reason.

In the meantime, I'd like to formally re-propose the deletion of this article, based strictly on the WP:V criteria, and that we keep this discussion on-track relating strictly to Wikipedia's article inclusion criteria, rather than a discussion of the WP:TRUTH or otherwise of its contents. -- The Anome (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am in favor of doing exactly that with the gang stalking article, but keeping it semi-protected. If you review the history of that article, the un-verifiable claims were coming mostly from anonymous users. It may not be appropriate to put the sources into the article about persecutory delusions as even the author of the Mind Games article leaves it up in the air about what's really happening. Basically the concept of gang stalking is something that could be real for some people, while being delusional thinking for some others; representing it as a cut-and-dried case of delusion wouldn't be something I'd want in my edit history if it turned out to be really happening and got national attention.Jeremystalked(law 296) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with The Anome. To present this as factual information is both unencyclopedic and grossly irresponsible, either mocking or (even worse) reinforcing the beliefs of the mentally ill. Along these lines, if there is to be a "gang stalking" article, it needs to be titled gang stalking delusion to make completely clear that Wikipedia is not misrepresenting such delusions as reality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Along those lines, I can think of lots of articles that should be renamed to include delusion in their titles. How about god? Can you verify the existence of God? Or how about reptilians? Shouldn't both those articles be renamed to god delusion and reptilian delusion, respectively? Why are you focusing on this one particular concept to include the word delusion in the name of the article?Jeremystalked(law 296) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've heard many an argument on the existence of God, ranging from the convincing to the absurd, but I've yet to hear a "God must exist, He's on Wikipedia!" But someone who believes the government or whoever is stalking them will look for 'evidence' even in the totally random: a phone number on a passing van could have all sorts of meanings to a paranoid schitzophrenic. Finding their delusional beliefs seemingly reinforced on Wikipedia would be playing with their minds with likely tragic consequences, not to mention being antithetical to our goal of being a reliable source of verifiable information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're assuming that everyone reporting COINTELPRO style conspicuous surveillance and stalking tactics (including, possibly, unverifiable 21st century surveillance technology) must be mentally ill. Where are your reliable sources?
        • You're just as bad as the people dropping into these discussions saying, "Gang stalking is real! It is wrong to keep my belief system out of wikipedia!" To give in to your non-verifiable position or their non-verifiable position would be advocacy (WP:ADVOCACY). The truth doesn't matter, only the verifiability does (WP:VNT); and it is verifiable that there is this phenomenon many people are calling gang stalking.Jeremystalked(law 296) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, if someone told me the government (or whoever) was "stalking" them using sci-fi surveillance techniques, as a matter of fact I would assume they're suffering from mental illness, as that's pretty much the textbook example of paranoid schizophrenia. It's been said many times that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." So, let's see that extraordinary proof that you have that "gang stalking" exists as you describe it. So far (see below) the best you've come up with is a fictional novel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Bureau of Justice Statistics considers the reports of group stalking in the USA to be notable. The purpose of group stalking is almost certainly not to pursue a personal relationship with the target (can you make the case that it does?), which leaves two possible motivations: terrorizing (coercing) or getting revenge on the target. That puts it in the category of terrorist/vengeance stalking, also called cause stalking.
            • So now let's get into stalking/harassment by groups of people larger than three, which seem to involve advanced surveillance. As above, the purpose of such stalking/harassment would not be to "seek a personal relationship with the target" (classical stalking), but rather, terrorist/vengeance stalking, also called cause stalking. There have been instances of this in the past, most notably COINTELPRO. The FBI wasn't using the type of surveillance in 1970 that targets of these types of tactics are reporting today - and we can only speculate about why that is. We are reliant on the impressions of the targets to describe what kind of surveillance they are under; a given target may be misinformed or deluded about one tiny aspect of his campaign even though he is at the same time completely correct about the existence of the overall campaign.
            • Basically, you haven't really made a good case that your position is the correct one, and I would advise you to review political psychiatry. In open societies, the authorities can't usually get away with forcibly commiting obviously sane and innocent political dissidents, because that makes martyrs. One very plausible method of discrediting political dissidents in an open society would involve harassing them until they report the types of experiences that fit the definition of mental illness - as I recall, a few COINTELPRO targets fell for this trap. The whole process doesn't have to make economic sense; after all, it's only your money.
            • A gang stalking article wouldn't be asserting the above, as it isn't Wiki-true. But your position isn't Wiki-true either. Review WP:VNT; we must have respect for truth and accuracy (your position is not obviously true or accurate) but ultimately, Wiki-truth trumps truth - in Wikipedia. And the Wiki-truth is that there's some controversy over what people reporting gang stalking are actually experiencing.Jeremystalked(law 296) 09:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Bureau of Justice report cited above says nothing of the sort, as I have already explained. It includes a table that reports that a number of victims have reported being stalked by more than one person, but says nothing about whether those stalkers are acting independently or as a group. The report considers this phenomenon so unnotable that it doesn't even refer to it in the text. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • "... it says nothing about whether those stalkers are acting independently or as a group." So basically, you're suggesting that a majority of these people reporting stalking by groups of people are stalker magnets? Just to help set you straight, "There's something about Mary" is a comedy, not a documentary; it is humorous exactly because most people recognize how ridiculous the premise of the movie is. And the phenomenon of group stalking must be notable, otherwise it wouldn't be included in a table in the report, right?
                • You're grasping at straws. Jeremystalked(law 296) 02:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, but you're the one grasping at straws here, and I am suggesting nothing on the basis of that report. It neither says that multiple stalkers are acting individually, nor that they are acting in concert, so it can't be used to draw either conclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • A big chunk of what this argument is about is the offending of some Wikipedians' sensibilities. For example, User:Starblind, above, advocates getting rid of the article because he thinks the claims made could only be made by mentally ill people. This sub-thread is one attempt to show that his belief is prejudicial. I'm not going to claim that the Bureau of Justice report directly links phrases such as "gang stalking", "cause stalking", etc., to the sorts of claims that victims are making. I am claiming that the the idea that individual stalkers could just happen to converge on a single target without cooperating with each other on some level, and that this happens in a majority of the large numbers of reported cases involving group stalking, is outlandish, regardless of the report's failure to draw conclusions. What you're doing is applying encyclopedic reasoning to an argument that appeals to common sense, and that, my friend, is grasping at straws. Jeremystalked(law 296) 13:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or find a way to connect via disambiguation or redirect to the pages on mobbing, workplace bullying or scapegoating. There are references on vengeance stalking that suggest these are similar crimes. I don't think the discussion has been allowed to fully progress either. Batvette (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lock down: make it a redirect to stalking#stalking by groups and then protect it. There is a WP:RS that names cause stalking, Snow's book (stopping the stalker); keeping it as a link is in the spirit of WP:IAR. I am forced to agree that there are not enough reliable sources to support the original contentions of the article.Jeremystalked(law 296) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Finding their delusional beliefs seemingly reinforced on Wikipedia would be playing with their minds with likely tragic consequences"
    • "Because crazy people might do something bad once they see this information" is really a groundless argument, and irresponsible when you consider that you'd be hiding the reality of the crimes to those really experiencing it.
    • I think Jeremy's last proposal to a redirect to stalking by groups (and expanding it, as it sits it says nothing) is solid and should meet with The Anome's approval as he has already confirmed existence of those crimes. Batvette (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about "hiding the reality of the crimes to those really experiencing it" is not really applicable, since we do not have any evidence that meets Wikipedia's standards that "gang stalking", as described by the many non-WP:RS proponents of its existence, complete with its conspiracy theory aspects -- actually occurs in real life.
I can't stress too much the need to distinguish between belief in something, and the physical reality of that thing.
The problem I would have with making the redirect -- but, unfortunately, I think it's a show-stopper -- is that I cannot find any references from WP:RS that use the term "cause stalking". As far as I can tell, the term is a neologism, possibly invented by Lawson. It would not make any sense to me to redirect to "stalking by groups" from an idiosyncratic usage not supported by WP:RS -- it seems to me that the alleged phenomenon of "cause stalking"/"gang stalking", in its common usage on the Internet, is quite distinct from the ordinary and well-attested phenomenon of stalking by groups of people without any of the associated unfalsifiable conspiracy theory add-ons.
On the other hand, if sufficient WP:RS existed to justify the creation of a gang stalking article, I'd be happy to have a link from cause stalking to that article, since they are both commonly-used terms for the same thing. -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I found a number of books on amazon that do not appear to be self published. My life changed forever Bridging the Gap 1996 Snitch Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batvette (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1996 is the strongest card in that hand. The publisher, Third World Press, is not a vanity press; the author, Gloria Naylor, has several books to her name. She also won a National Book Award in 1983. The book is described by the publisher as a fictionalized memoir of events that happened to the author - 'fictionalized', I take it, to obscure the identity of players in her story who might sue her. 1996 doesn't mention any kind of stalking by name, but it does report on conspicuous surveillance and mind control, the sorts of things that are associated with reports of gang stalking.
Snitch culture is a useful reference and WP:RS but it doesn't talk about terrorist/political stalking or any of its variations.
Bridging the Gap is published by CreateSpace, which advertises self-publishing services. My life changed forever... is published by Infinity Publishing - another vanity press. Other editors on this thread can (and would) verify this information in a matter of seconds. Just because the information in the books might seem reasonable, even assembling itself into encyclopedic-quality summaries in our minds, doesn't mean it's going to pass muster around these parts. Maybe if someone did an anime series about gang stalking... ;-) Jeremystalked(law 296) 10:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that rules all of them out as possible sources for this article. Although 1996 is not self-published, a book that blurs the boundaries between fact and fiction can't reasonably be used as a factual source, since we can't possibly tell which is which. -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Donner's book on Red Squads also had many parallels to this:

Protectorsof privilledgeBatvette (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Parallels" are not enough. I can't see anything in the Google books preview of Protectors of Privilege that backs up the assertions in this article. -- The Anome (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion based on original article creator's comments[edit]

I have just noted that User:Jeremystalked said above, on the 2nd, that "I am forced to agree that there are not enough reliable sources to support the original contentions of the article". As he was the original creator of the article, and there are no other contributors other than Jeremystalked and myself, unless there is evidence that this is no longer the case (and I can't see any in the discussion above), I'd suggest that this pretty much closes the issue. -- The Anome (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm only conceding the article needs to be revised; for example, it could be kept as a redirect to Stalking#stalking by groups. There is a reliable source linking cause stalking to terrorist/vengeance stalking, Snow's book. It's fair to, at the very least, keep cause stalking as a redirect. Remember, Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not apply to the titles of redirects: see WP:RNEUTRAL.Jeremystalked(law 296) 02:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anome has already explained above why the Snow book cannot be considered reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? The only remark about that book I've seen from him is an assertion that it can't be read online (which is false). Jeremystalked(law 296) 15:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name.2[edit]

So since The Anome has graciously conceded that there are criminal acts being perpetrated against individuals, or the ordinary and well attested phenomen of stalking by groups of people, I would like him to kindly provide the name of this activity, and at least one reference to it that meets wiki standards, so we can begin to work on this page. Since the justice department concedes these crimes as well I for one am dying to know why they're doing this and who they are. If we don't give these crimes he's talking about some attention we at wikipedia would be irresponsible as a source of information.Batvette (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're not listening, are you? We've already had the discussions about whether this is a "well attested phenomenon" and whether the justice department "concedes these crimes" and no evidence has been presented for either proposition. It is getting really tiresome having the same claims repeated again and again without any evidence. Once again, the report that you linked above says absolutely nothing about stalkers acting in concert. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no truth; there is only wiki-truth. There's a term for using Wikipedia policies and culture (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, etc...) as a shield to defend an editor's belief systems from intrusions by reality - WP:WIKILAWYERING.
    • I'm not going to get into whether there is a reliable source, anywhere, that satisifies Wikipedians' prejudices - I've seen reliable sources attacked elsewhere on the basis of WP:FRINGE because the conclusions did not sit well with some editors - and that link the phrase "gang stalking" or "cause stalking" directly to the sorts of assertions made in the original article. I'm simply going to point out that at a bare minimum, WP:RNEUTRAL applies; "cause stalking" is the sort of terminology that is "out there", in the wild, and mentioned in at least one Reliable Source; and linking it to Stalking#stalking by groups would not yield misleading results. Deleting the article is over-reacting. Jeremystalked(law 296) 15:20, 8 August 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.
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. Courcelles 01:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Farce[edit]

Edward Farce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find no RS to support assertions of notability not even an IMDb entry, fails WP:GNG –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Quite likley a hoax... and a bad one. The article asserts a role in A Knight's Tale, but no actor named "Farce" nor character named "Marcus" is listed in the film.[99] The article asserts a role in Waiting for Guffman, but no actor named "Farce" nor character named "David" is listed in the film.[100] The article asserts awards for stagework, but such is unsourcable. All that is found in regards this individual are wiki mirrors. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete on the basis of verifiability. There are no sources to support this likely hoax. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a Google News Archive search turned up nothing.[101] --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 August 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.
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 redirect to Nightmare (album). JForget 01:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God Hates Us (Avenged Sevenfold song)[edit]

God Hates Us (Avenged Sevenfold song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:NSONG - "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." It doesn't appear to be a released single, have charted, or have any other specific notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 31 July 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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabon at the 2000 Summer Olympics[edit]

Gabon at the 2000 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems contrary to our policies that Wikipedia is not sprawling lists of statistics or routine sports reports. All we have here are some meagre sporting results of no great significance or notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bulbasaur is not my AFD and I have no idea why you are talking about federally-licensed TV stations. So far as precedent is concerned, sports has been able to flout the WP:GNG up to now but that seems to be changing. This article seems to contravene the policies which I have cited and your local views on sports notability are weaker than that. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To quote Wp:Notability (sports), "Nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics", thus making it notable. (And, if this was considered non-notable, then thousands of similar articles would have to go as well.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not talking about the USA or GB here. You need more than supposedly intrinsic notability - you need some content too and there's nothing significant here - no commentary, no analysis - just a handful of routine results. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you aren't actually suggesting that we should uphold WP:systemic bias by only keeping similar content for countries like the USA or GB, because content for the Gabon Olympic team isn't readily available for the typical en.wiki editor. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know we're not talking about the US or GB here - I was quoting that page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are examples, Colonel Warden. It obviously meets the guidelines. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 18:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Query: Should many of the items listed under the category "Nations at the 2000 Summer Olympics" therefore also be part of this AfD discussion, and given the same fate as Gabon? If so, what criteria would determine the dividing line? Should we also review the similar categories for other Olympic years? — Michael J 23:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There do indeed seem to be perfunctory articles of a similar sort such as Chad at the 2000 Summer Olympics and Tonga at the 2000 Summer Olympics. In all these cases there is no significant content because these nations had few participants and none of them achieved anything significant. Per the WP:GNG, we require some significant sourcing, not just sprawling statistics spread thinly across every country in the world. Where are the sources which discuss the performance of these countries in a general way? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Each nation that sent an athlete to the 2000 Summer Olympics gets an article like this. It's the way we've chosen to arrange a large body of related data. In cases like this, notability or significance is a side issue; individual notability for each team that participated need not be shown. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The large body of data you're talking about here are sporting results. These are the sprawling statistics which are forbidden by policy because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive breakdown of sporting statistics like Wisden or other sporting bibles. Our style is a summary one and so we should stick to medal-winners and the like - the results which actually attract notice and comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:43, 1 August 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.
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 Speedy deleted because no content or context Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pathare Prabhu Community's Ancient links:[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pathare Prabhu Community's Ancient links: (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Andreasm just talk to me 08:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleted as no context. I cannot see that this AFD was needed with no reason to delete provided! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 31 July 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.
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 speedy deleted no content Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E.B.M. Smith[edit]

E.B.M. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Andreasm just talk to me 08:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•Speedy Delete per A7 - no context, no indication of notability. In the future, don't bring articles which meet any of the WP:CSD criteria to AFD, because it simply clogs up the system. Claritas § 09:42, 31 July 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.
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 speedy close. Author of the current version blanked the page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Olsen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lizzie Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

previously deleted in an AfD in 2006... doesn't seem to be any more notable now. The-Pope (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The standard here seems to be that merely appearing in films is enough. No reason to single this article out for deletion. Wolfview (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, the WP:ENT guideline is a bit higher than just appearing in films. Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 31 July 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.
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. JForget 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture in present-day nations and states[edit]

Agriculture in present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not add anything that the category system already does. (i.e. Category:Agriculture by country). Please, See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architecture of present-day nations and states, an AfD recently closed as Delete, and in which those articles were named (but without being actually tagged). I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Cultures of present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Economies of present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Geography of present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
History of present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Law enforcement in present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Transport in present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tourism in present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Maashatra11 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 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.
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. NW (Talk) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Zaretzky[edit]

Ken Zaretzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unable to find sources beyond what is already in the article. The Chicago Tribune contains a brief quote of the subject, but is not an article about the subject so does not contribute much to establishing notability. VQuakr (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news has hits. A major newspaper has an article about him, and another uses him as an expert opinion. Both are pay per view, so I can't read the entire articles.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette : HOW TO TRIVIALIZE ADD: CALL IT A GIFT
$2.95 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - NewsBank - Dec 21, 2005
Ken Zaretzky likes to say that if he didn't already have attention deficit disorder, he'd find a way to get it. To Zaretzky, a 49-year-old ADD coach from ...
Attention deficit can come with a benefit for some
Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Nov 20, 2005
Ken Zaretzky likes to say that if he didnt already have attention deficit disorder hed find a way to get it To Zaretzky a 49yearold ADD coach the condition ...
You can read the full text of the Chicago Tribune piece in the archived location noted as reference #1 in the article; it is a trivial quote in my opinion. Given the similarities between the Post-Gazette and Tribune abstracts, do you think it is likely that the Post-Gazette article represents significant coverage? VQuakr (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Based on the quote it appears the articles are the same and fails to support notability. BTW - The link in the article appears to be a copyright violation as it is copied from the Post-Gazette without permission to reprint indicated and probably should be removed from the article. ttonyb (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, that is spot-on. Not only is it a link to a possible copyright violation, it also becomes a self-published source (the copied article was on the subject's organization's website) and therefore a unreliable source, because we don't know if it is a true copy. I have changed it to link to the newspaper's website - even with the debate in progress, it's good to get possible copyright issues fixed straight away. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure how to participate in this discussion as I am new here, but this article should be kept. One of the criteria for establishing notability for a living person is "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Among other things Mr. Zaretzky was the co-founder of BOTH of the professional Organizations in his field (the "ADHD Coaches Organization" and a founder of the "Professional Association of ADHD Coaches"). Both of those organizations websites are cited as references. This is clearly "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He has also presented talks on his area of expertise all over the United States (A number of these have also been listed in the article and several of the organizations he has presented at have been listed (thier websites) as references. Ken Zaretzky, MCC is not notable for having been in the Beatles or having been president of the united states or having been a famous serial killer. He is notable because is is dominant in his field (ie:Coaching, more specifically ADHD Coaching) and for having made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field.". clutz8672 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.227.194 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC) — 98.220.227.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: That's exactly how you can contribute to a deletion debate. Don't worry about being new, just have a go and state your case - just like you did. The guidelines for contributing to a deletion debate are set out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. Note that you ought to "disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no evidence of notability. Claims of notability, including making a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" must be supported by independant, secondary sources. Quite simply, there are no such sources - either in the article or online. Newspaper articles quoting the individual or about the subject in which the individual is involved are not about the individual and, therefore, contribute nothing towards a claim of notability. Similarly with using the organizations as references - the fact that the organizations exist and have websites, doesn't make the individual notable. What we need is other people - reliable secondary sources talking about the individual and his contribution to the specific field. Other than self-published websites, there is no such evidence at all. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:yes, I did start the article but there are a lot of things that have been added. As far as the above comment that there is no such evidence at all this is simply not true. READ the websites that were cited. If you read the ADHD Coaches Associations ( http://www.adhdcoaches.org ) website which is cited as a reference you will see that he is referred to as the founder in a number of places. Does one have to cite which page within the organizations website they say that? On the Professional Association of ADHD Coaches ( http://www.paaccoaches.org ) he is listed as a founding board member on the second page. The talks and presentations he has given for other organizations are all within thier websites which have been cited in this article. Do we have to lead readers to the exact page within an organizations website or assume that readers are bright enough and interested enough to look into the history?

He was given an award by the ADHD Coaches Organization (ACO) at thier conference in St. Louis two years ago that read "To Ken Zaretzky, MCC who Named the ADHD Coaches Organization and who proposed the fundamental definition of what it means to be an ADHD Coach, who served as membership chair, marketing chair and founding board member from 2005 to 2008. With great thanks for your vision, determinination and entrepreneurial zeal without which this organization would not exist." And it was signed by Sarah D. Wright. MS, ACT who was the president of the organization at that time. That certainly sounds like a founder to me. Would it be useful If I were to contact him and ask him to provide a scan of that award? Would that establish that he was a founder? (This information is all on thier website). As far as having a vested interested goes I am in the same field and believe that one of our "giants" belongs in wikipedia. Why has nobody mentioned the ADDitude magazine article about couples with ADHD which is essentially an interview with a couple who were clients of his discussing thier issues and how he coached them through them? The mans picture is even in that article. There is also a link to a television show about ADHD Coaching featuring both him and his client. There is not a great deal of information on ADHD Coaching out there period but an awful lot what does mentions him in it. Just for kicks I googled him and contrary to what I have seen someone else say I got over 6100 hits. Could it be that we are dealing with a giant (notable) figure in a small field? The information out there very clearly proves that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Once again, he isn't notable as a politician, or an inventor or a movie star or as a criminal. He is notable in HIS field. If you'll do a little searching yourself I think you'll find that he is likely the most notable ADHD Coach there is. clutz8672 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.227.194 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC) — 98.220.227.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment. Clutz (who is actually IP 98.220.227.194 ), I think you have made your point. Let's see where the discussion goes. We have to be careful in these type of debates that the issues mentioned in the essay WP:BLUDGEON don't come into play. Cheers, Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. several references (including ADDitude magazine Articles and ACO and PAAC pages which refer to Zaretzky as the founder) Have been added to demonstrate notability.Yesimhuman (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)— Yesimhuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial in nature and lacks the substance to support an article. ttonyb (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The coverage is about what ADHD Coaches do. More specifically what he does as an ADHD Coach. There is nothing trivial at all about them. Read both ADDitude Magazine articles that were cited. Do they have to refer to him as god for him to be notable? Clearly he is considered an expert in both articles as well as in the television show that is referenced. You should probably take a look at that too as well as the specific pages that are referenced in the ACO and PAAC websites. All I have seen anyone talking about is a chicaho tribune article. there are a number of other citings and references in that article and there is nothing what-so-ever trivial about them. Yesimhuman (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)— Yesimhuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Lack of reliable, biographical sources written independently of the article subject and/or his organization. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has received coverage in major newspapers. Has been either extensively quoted or a subject in two articles in a general circulation magazine. Has been the subject of a segment of a television show that has been shown on many PBS stations. Has been a frequent radio guest on many shows (3 are cited). Is referred to as the founder and founding father of one of the two professional organizations in his field (cited) and as a founding board member of the other (cited). Please keep in mind that he is an ADHD Coach, not a baseball player, the types of coverage and secondary sources will be different, but they are absolutely there. ADHD Coaches usually don't get famous. In his field he has. Yesimhuman (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)— Yesimhuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. The coverage of Zaretzky in most of the sources is trivial (in Wikipedia that means that it doesn't meet the standard of "significant coverage" required by the notability criteria. Many sources are merely quotations in an article about something else and in several cases, the citations do not support the claims in the article. Take the sentence in the article that reads, "He is known in his field as an expert on coaching couples ..." The sources include a few short quotes from Zaretzky and refer to him as "an ADHD coach in Wheeling, Illinois" and "a life coach in Chicago". There is no mention of being considered an expert. So not only is the coverage trivial, the source doesn't support the claim in the article. Most of the sources have very similar problems. They simply don't provide evidence of notability in accordance with the notability standards of Wikipedia and it seems they are used to support the Wikipedia article editor's opinion about the subject (e.g. being quoted in a magazine allows Zaretzky to be called "an expert in his field", even though the source makes no such claim, simply referring to him as "a coach").
  • Comment And the articles are both about couples with ADHD. One of them is EXCLUSIVELY about a couple Ken Zaretzky was coaching and he is quoted in it many times. The other was about several couples with ADHD and Ken Zaretzky was the only ADHD Coach quoted in that article (also several times). He has also presented talks at CHADD (cited) and ADDA (cited) international conference several times on "Coaching Couples with ADHD" and all one has to do to find this is look in the cited websites to verify that. Yes, that does sound like expert to me. Of course they were referring to him as "a coach" What would they refer to him as? A Shoemaker? A Neurosurgeon? He IS a coach. His field is Coaching and he is absolutely considered an expert in it. (He is in fact a Master Certified Coach, that's what the MCC after his name means). That's what the article is about. I don't know but this is all looking more and more like a hatchet job to me with "experienced Wikipedians" just looking thugish or mean. However, there is still no more notable an ADHD Coach (His field) in the world than Ken Zaretzky is. And poor inexperienced me believes the references cited very well establish that fact. As far as the thinly disguised accusation of "meat puppetry or sock puppetry go, I personally resent them. I am not Clutz. I do know her however and I agree with her. So would many other people if they were in this "discussion". I came in after she gave up because she felt attacked and can be rather thin skined. I am not. Lets see what you guys attack me with next.
As to the assertion (constantly added to everything I post) that I have made few posts or edits prior to this article, Well guys, I'm new here. So what? I'm not really sure that this hostile an environment is somewhere I care to stick around too long either. Keep chasing people away, that should be good for Wikipedia.
It is fascinating to me that every time I say something that backs up my position one of two people almost immediatly has to have an answer to rebut or invalidate it. It would seem that "experienced Wikipedians" would just be able to make thier point and "shut up" as I certainly would have had the "experienced Wikipedians" had the ability to contain themselves and do the same. I do have some (although I believe it is correct) emotional attachment to my position because I am in the same field as Mr. Zaretzky is. I'm just dying to find out what your clear and obvious emotional attachment to it is. Yesimhuman (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC) — Yesimhuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note Two of the three keep proponents are users with edits only on this debate. One (98.220.227.194) manually signed as "clutz8672", but was logged on under the IP. Clutz8672 only has edits to the nominated article and talk pages directly associated with it. Wikipedia:Single-purpose account gives guidance on dealing with single-purpose accounts and we need to be careful of making accusations about sock puppetry, meat puppetry or other motives, but I do note and draw attention to the significant contribution to this debate by sngle-purpose users taking the same position in this debate.Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::Why on earth would an "experienced Wikipedian" want to vandalize the post (a keep of course) by Dream Focus at 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)?

I keep hearing that this is a community, What I see is a group of mean, immature, bullish and vindictive people. I always thought of that as a mob. When will an administrater take a look at this and make a decision so I can go back to playing with adults? Yesimhuman (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person who has edited Dream Focus's comment. Please stop inserting text into other people's comments, it is not appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, No. Someone changed the name of the article in the Pittsburgh newspaper. I agree that it is inappropriate to insert text into other prople's comments. I was pointing out that it was done (And it was) as it was to clutz's comments (yes, it really was) and has been done to most of mine. My question was "When does an administrator take a look at this and make a decision so that I can go back to playing with adults?". I believe that this has gone on for over seven days.
As to the vandalism of Dream Focus's post which was changing the articles name to "HOW TO TRIVIALIZE ADD: CALL IT A GIFT". Sadly, none of you know any better but those of us in the field are very familiar with the ADHD as a gift theory. It was originally advanced by Thom Hartmann who has written a few books on the topic (actually a friend and colleague of Ken Zaretzky) and he and his theory aren't too hard to find out about. He, of course, is in wikipedia. Many of us in the field believe that ADHD is a gift. But changing the title of the newspaper article WAS ABSOLUTELY vandalizm as was adding "who is really IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx to clutz's post and the silly little tags designed to trivialize me that are added to all my comments. Anyway, when do we get to end this "discussion" and have an administrator make a decision? I obviously think the article should be kept. So do several other people. Severel people don't. There is no concensus and I don't anticipate one coming in the near future. So how do we get an administrator to intercede? I've emailed one or two but haven't heard back from them yet. maybe one of you "Experts" could help get one involved. Or I can keep trying. Yesimhuman (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Alright, I bite. How does the original post by Dream Focus [102] differ from this existing text? I don't see the difference. ttonyb (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging posts from new accounts is standard procedure on deletion discussions, try not to take it personally. An admin should be along to close the debate shortly. Be patient, this discussion is not all that overdue (there are several AFDs that started on the 31st that have yet to be closed, this one should have it's turn soon.) - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 8 August 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.
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 keep. JForget 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansar[edit]

Kansar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a recipe. Other than that, is this really a usable article? Raymie Humbert (t • c) 05:54, 31 July 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.
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. JForget 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tears of Blood[edit]

Tears of Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this one is obvious per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. The fact that the album is in the works can be mentioned at the band's page. For the foreseeable future there is not nearly enough to go on for a stand-alone album article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Regardless of WP:Crystal or not, the amount of info on the page can easily be placed on the band's page without any complication. However, Wiki does require a source, is there a link for this interview that can be placed along on the band page? GroundZ3R0 002 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No title, no track listing, no release date. I couldn't find the interview. If we can't verify what's here, it shouldn't even be mentioned at the artist's article. Cliff smith talk 02:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. It's also unsourced, and since the author has had a few of his articles speedied, that makes me a little suspicious; I don't think a redirect is appropriate here. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:55, 1 August 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.
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. Feel free to restore it once it passes WP:HAMMER. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Nightwish album[edit]

2011 Nightwish album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL; a lot of self-published blogs and first-hand sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough verifiable information now to justify the page. Likely to be added to with further such information. Would be better not to delete a page that is 'on the up' like this. Like all Wiki pages, it is a 'work in progress'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.166.104 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation might be a good idea. Cliff smith talk 16:09, 4 August 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.
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 keep. JForget 00:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brave Arms (2)[edit]

Brave Arms (2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7 nominee. Has one reference that cleared it for A7, but one source does not clear WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 31 July 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.
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 keep. There are three guidelines relating to this topic, and all have been brought up in the discussion. WP:Source list indicates that lists should be sourced in the same manner as articles - while this list is currently unsourced, it is quite clear that as the list topic is factual and notable there will be no problem sourcing it, so therefore that it currently has no references is not a reason for deletion. WP:CLN was mentioned. That guideline provides no argument for deleting this list - indeed, it explains how such a list can work with the existing category, and gives a useful guide to the advantages of such a list. WP:SALAT does point out that lists which are "too general or too broad in scope" may not be useful, and then proceeds to indicate that splitting such lists into sections may assist the reader - and this list does have some sections, and the potential to be managed even further. That there is already an existing category indicates that the topic of this list is seen to have educational and research value. SilkTork *YES! 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of herbivorous animals[edit]

List of herbivorous animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has category. Completely unmanagable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though this is a good list for basic navigation. It is still subject to Verifiability and No Original Research which means that all entries should be sourced.--Lenticel (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator cites no policies that this article fails. Having a category is not a reason for deletion - lists and categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. Completely unmanagable?! It has about 30 entries! If it can be managed as a category, then a list should be no problem. Lugnuts (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALAT (guideline) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful. There are actually millions of species that could be included. Wolfview (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The potential scope of the article (thousands, if not millions of species) make this impossible to manage and source. First Light (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiple problems, unresolvable. This is essentially an article for juvenile readers. the proper article would be "list of herbivorous branches of the taxonomic system", with species listed when their genus is not entirely herbivorous, genera when their family is not entirely herbivorous, and recursing up the taxonomic ladder. listing every species, of course, is utterly unacceptable, and if that is what this is trying to do, it needs to be deleted. this is a hand picked list of mostly common names for common animals. the category is not much better. maybe someone who cares could create a "list of herbivorous mammals", which would be manageable and may reflect actual interest in some people.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's actually the category that would be too cumbersome in this case because a category with hundreds of thousands of articles in it does not seem practically useful. A list seems a better approach because it can be constructed in a more intelligent fashion by listing broad classes of animals such as ruminants, rodents, termites, fruit-eating bats, &c. Anyway, WP:CLS says clearly that we don't delete lists to favour categories. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mercurywoodrose. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? A proper list of herbivorous species would be impossibly large. On the other hand, this informal list has rather vague groupings, which leads to errors. The "kangaroo" category includes the extinct omnivorous genus Propleopus, for example. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SALAT. It is way too broad to be usable. Tavix |  Talk  02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. This is very broad in a zoological sense, but still helpful to some readers. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using category hierarchies, we can easily have categories with millions of species, if we want them. Lists of millions of species (which is what this would be) don't work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the list topic has potential if it is structured properly. If entire orders or families or other groups of animals are herbivores, then it would be senseless to list individual species and easy to list the orders. If certain species are exceptions to the general rule that their order is carnivorous, then it's informative to list those exceptions. It is certainly encyclopedic to note that X number of all insect orders are herbivorous, or that Y species is the only member of Z family that is herbivorous. I'm not sure whether to !vote keep though, or delete without prejudice, given that the list in its current state is so haphazard and arbitrary as to be completely useless. It just reads like a child's attempt to write down all the plant-eating animals he can think of. Any reasonable list would have to start from scratch. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic is notable, list just needs some organization to make it useful and maintainable. The Category arguments are bogus as always. Don't these people ever read WP:CLN? --Mike Cline (talk) 13:55, 8 August 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.
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 keep. I'm gonna just go ahead and close this, the IP is exactly right, on recently added to main page, and needing to preserve the history (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of How It's Made episodes[edit]

List of How It's Made episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exact same stuff already listed at How_It's_Made#Episodes, don't need two listings CTJF83 chat 03:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it should be a separate list, since it makes the article very long now. It was only added on July 25, before which it was a separate list article. See this edit to see the addition. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) You're right, I didn't do my homework, it should probably be removed from the How It's Made page. CTJF83 chat 04:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in any case, it was a copy-paste merge, so the list article will need to be kept for attribution history, atleast as a redirect. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:23, 31 July 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.
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. JForget 00:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monticlair Nutly[edit]

Monticlair Nutly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

probable hoax, otherwise no assertion of notability. See Talk:Monticlair Nutly for detailed reasoning. Prod contested by author. -kotra (talk) 02:30, 31 July 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.
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 no consensus. Scott Mac 14:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club Deportivo Guadalajara Reserves[edit]

Club Deportivo Guadalajara Reserves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since most of the Premiere League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga have their reserve and youth players on their main article, the mexican league reserves should also be in the main article. The Mexican reserve team articles are unsourced and are poorly written. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also reserve player articles:

Indios de Ciudad Juárez Reserves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Estudiantes Tecos Reserves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Puebla FC Reserves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GoPurple'nGold24 01:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - reserve team pages are notable (see Category:Reserve team football); these pages needs improving not deleting. GiantSnowman 21:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: one of the "reserve" team played in Primera División A of Mexico and many reserve teams played in the same pyramid. But the article should be updated as reserve team no longer allowed to play in Primera División A. Matthew_hk tc 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination is factually incorrect, in that most Premier League, La Liga and Bundesliga reserve teams do have separate Wikipedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There really isn't sufficient context information in the article or the AfD for me to make an informed decision. What is a "filial team"? What is "Primera Division A" and the other things talked of? Is "Primera Division" the highest level of Mexican football, and "Primera Division A" the next highest? Are the the players on this team full-time professionals, or not? I guess one is supposed to know this stuff if one wants to make use of the article. The whole article is a mess and leaves me completely confused about what is being discussed. This is the English Wikipedia, can we have some context please? Also, the article is titled "Club Deportivo Guadalajara Reserves" but the article lede begins "CD Tapatio was..."" So, is the name of the entity in question Club Deportivo Guadalajara Reserves or CD Tapatio or what, and why don't the title and beginning of the lede match? And then it appears they have changed their name to Leones Negros de U de G for some reason. Also, the article seems to consist primarily of a list of the 2009 squad. Why? Is there no 2010 squad? What about 2008 and earlier years? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 31 July 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.
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 keep. no consensus to delete, without prejudice to a merge being worked out elsewhere Scott Mac 14:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never Not Funny (season 1)[edit]

Never Not Funny (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Never Not Funny (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Not Funny (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Not Funny (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Not Funny (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Not Funny (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Not Funny (Season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Not Funny Primo Bonus Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Not Funny: Volume One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The main podcast itself, Never Not Funny, is certainly notable. However, there is no reason to have individual season pages, and none of these pages have any actual sources that provide notability apart from the main show, and notability is not inherited. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge The merge template should appear on these pages and not AFD. patsw (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask why? It doesn't appear to me that any of this information is particularly integeral to an encyclopedic article. Besides, most of the information is already contained in the "list of guests" section. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, look, this article has been relisted twice and only one person has cared to comment, and that was two weeks ago. So I recommend that it be closed as No consensus to delete. Which is OK with me. We agree that the entity "Never Not Funny" is notable, I guess. If it was highly notable, we would not want to delete the information in these season articles, as it seems worthwhile. But there's too much information to be merged. I don't know if "Never Not Funny" is highly notable or not, or even if the concept "highly notable" has meaning. If it was Shakespeare, we would want to keep it. Will future generations look back on "Never Not Funny" as the apothesis of the Great Podcast Flowering? Will they pore over transcripts looking for thesis material? I don't know, but I don't know that they won't. So count my !vote as Keep if that helps in closing this damn thing. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 31 July 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.
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 no consensus. Scott Mac 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the On Broadway 1982[edit]

Live at the On Broadway 1982 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this bootleg recording meets the notability criteria for albums? Cannibaloki 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Undecided) - This one is confusing as I can't figure out if the album is actually a bootleg or maybe an old official release that was poorly promoted. But the fact that I can't figure this out after a whole mess of searching might indicate a problem with notability, as the album has not been discussed (at least online) beyond some fan blogs and download sites. But on the other hand, a record company of unknown legitimacy is releasing the live album on CD later this year and it will be sold through real retailers like Amazon (see [105]). I'm undecided thanks to all this confusion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The lack of any coverage in reliable sources is a big problem. I am not sure of what to mack of the Amazon listing. It shows this as a November 2010 release, but as an MP3 release. so not really an album in the traditional sense. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just an MP3 album, but does anyone care much about physical CD's anymore? It's an important album by a major band. It's for sale at amazon.com, which I guess indicates that if it was originally a bootleg it's probably been legitimized at some point, as I doubt that Amazon sells illegal material, at least not knowingly. So that makes it part of the band's published corpus and thus as legitimate as article material as any of their albums, more or less. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator and due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources.--Cannibaloki 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per Herostratus - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:16, 7 August 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.
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 Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination by nominator. (non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmaniyah Island[edit]

Rahmaniyah Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An admin declined prod with this reason : "Sources are likely not to be in English; places are inherently notable unless provably non-existent". There are no sources to prove the existence of this place. Unless someone provides a reliable, secondary source, I can't see the point in keeping this article. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Well, I'm not a fan of trying to prove a negative, but someone could check the Arabic wikipedia to see if there's some sources there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. It might be this island. I would say keep if it is. Verified island adjacent to a city and even seems to have its own population centers. [106] --Oakshade (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on the arabic wikipedia article for it, Oakshade has identified the right location, and it is a populated place.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Question How can you conclude it is a populated place? Because Oakshade said : "seems to have its own population centers" ? How is it in any way conclusive ? According to the Arabic google translation, it seems to be some minor "islet" (I'm not even sure if it's to be considered an island) located in a place called "Rahmaniyah" (for which we haven't got an article yet). Maashatra11 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has many houses on it, you can see them on Google Maps, they are accessible via a road bridge that has a separate article[107] on the arabic wikipedia. (ETA: and that article says it is populated.)--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is populated - so what? It might be part of some other entity of greater importance for which we don't have an article yet. Maybe this little islet doesn't even have a name and it was named by user:faris knight only for the purpose of putting it on Wikipedia; We don't know anything yet, because we don't have reliable sources. ALL these articles in Arabic Wikipedia were created by the same user (including this English one) - and I can't see any reliable secondary sources (in the Arabic Wiki) that can prove their existence. In Google maps you can't see the name of this island. That's why I doubt very much it's called like that. For the moment it simply doesn't meet WP:GNG. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, we have treated all populated places as notable. The only question is whether the title of the article is correct, as we can be reasonably sure the island does have a name. I think we can find that out. I will try to look but am mostly AFK for a few days.--Milowent • talkblp-r 11:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NP. In the meantime, however, it just violates the core policies of Wikipedia, such as wp:TITLE (and virtually all of the other basic policies) Maashatra11 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Both articles (in Arabic and English) were created by the same author, user:faris knight. Maybe we should contact him about this case. I can see he's very active in the Arabic Wiki. My sole concern is that we don't have any reliable sources to prove the existence of this place; further I very much doubt this place is called "Island" out of Wikipedia. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An actual island that's adjacent to a major city and populated, kind of like the Roosevelt Island of Disuq.--Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources proving your claim? Maashatra11 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google maps shows the island described in the article. This island/geographical feature/populated place is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt its existence but its name. Who exactly says it's called "Rahmaniyah Island"? Maashatra11 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A dispute over the name is something to take up on the article's talk page, not bring to AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search in google (of the Arabic name: [108]) generates (1) Wikipedia articles created by user:faris knight (2) unreliable sources such as blogs, forums, wikimapia etc. See WP:GNG. Without reliable sources, this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks... Maashatra11 (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above comments, it does exist and I found it referred to as "Jazīrat ar Raḩmānīyah", Jazīrat being the "English-Arabic" word for island. I added coordinates with two geo-references and the alternate name to the article. There isn't a lot of sourcing on the island but it does exist.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, given the new reference, I guess I'll have to withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess you could still insist its non-notable to maximize the drama, but appreciate the withdraw. Glad we found out the proper name.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:19, 31 July 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.
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 keep. the article is now sourced, so the reason for the nominaiton is moot. If there's another reason for deletion, this close should not prejudice a renom on those grounds. Scott Mac 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Boztepe[edit]

Emin Boztepe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unreferenced BLP that has been tagged for improvement since Feb. 2008. The article gives no reliable sources to support any claim of notability. Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 24th June 2010. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. But only with reference improvement. Notable reference are out there. He's been on the cover of Inside Kung Fu 4 times (along with other feature coverage), his challenge with the Gracies was covered in Black Belt Magazine, and he's been on several other notable martial arts magazine covers with feature stores as well as can clearly be seen here. I actually have several of those mags in a pile I just dug out of storage to get rid of, I'll use it to improve the references before I do that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm not sure about Wikipedia policies, but this article is currently unsourced and doesn't show notability at all. Mr. Goldberg's link above shows that the subject might be notable, but since I can't read the articles, I don't know if they show notability or not. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, but this article could have been fixed in the 2 1/2 years since it was tagged and it hasn't been. Astudent0 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be some news refs out there, but alot are just based on attendance to events, also per the note above on the magazine articles. It certaintly could be saved if someone with knowledeg of the sport can come along. But otherwise it is a unrefed BLP. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it this weekend, found a bunch of the issues. Regarding Astudent's statement, per guidelines whether or not the reference is directly available to you to read online is irrelevant. That's not a requirement for usage. What is required is that the statements are sources to a reliable (i.e. editorial oversight) and notable sources, both of whick are satisfied by those published magazines. And of course that any content in the article stays within BLP. I've been involved in bringing articles to GA status before, I'm familiar with what contstitutes reliability and notability in source and content. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can fix up the article, that would be great. Marty, I interpret Astudent0's comments to simply mean he can't support (or refute) notability claims based on articles he can't read. I agree with him on that, but I'm hoping your article improvement will show referenced notability. It's hard for me to believe that all of those articles would be merely "passing mentions", so I expect notability can be shown. Papaursa (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added the first reference and I'm realizing this article is going to need almost a complete rewrite. I'm not happy it's falling solely on me (since I'm not even affiliated with him or that organization), but as a member of the martial arts project (and active there in relation to this art of Wing Chun) as the saying goes "If not me, who else?" I will embark on the rewrite and significant adding of references this weekend. Just don't have time during the week right now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As things stand, this discussion is a delete closure. However, I note that Wgungfu has undertaken to clean up and source the article over the weekend, and would like to give him the opportunity to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to do so. Found copies of two of the magazines, the Martial Arts and Combat Sports cover issue is a long feature article on him. The IKF issue is a direct interview. Taking a break, will do more later tonight. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would support allowing more time for Marty to work on the article, if he is continuing with this. Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you guys tell me what to do. I found another magazine source, and I will continue if you all think what's been done so far looks promising. I really don't want to put more work in to it if it's just going to be deleted anyways, as there's other articles that need my attention as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your work will show him to be notable (at least to me). Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Marty, I would be happy to help with editing. I'll see what I can do in the next day or two (I have limited time just now). Janggeom (talk) 22:52, 5 August 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.
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 List of DirecTV channels (United States) and List of Dish Network channels in the United States. JForget 00:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of DirecTV channels 300–399 (United States)[edit]

List of DirecTV channels 300–399 (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a batch nomination. I had prodded some but people didn't like the idea it was piecemeal. 38 articles in total. They are all "List of [Satellite provider] channels x-x".

This is classic almanac and not a directory territory. Moreover it's a straight duplication of List of DirecTV channels (United States), but without the text or context that makes it an encyclopedia article. There are similar articles I believe for other country listings too. Let's keep them all in the same place. Breaking this up like this makes no sense, creates a logistical nightmare, and is outside of policy. Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full list List of Dish Network channels 5600-5709 List of Dish Network channels 6600-6699 List of Dish Network channels 6700-6799 List of Dish Network channels 9300-9392 List of Dish Network channels 9200-9299 List of Dish Network channels 9100-9199 List of Dish Network channels 9000-9099 List of Dish Network channels 8900-8999 List of Dish Network channels 8800-8899 List of Dish Network channels 8700-8799 List of Dish Network channels 8600-8699 List of Dish Network channels 8500-8599 List of Dish Network channels 8400-8499 List of Dish Network channels 8300-8399 List of Dish Network channels 8200-8299 List of Dish Network channels 8100-8199 List of Dish Network channels 8000-8099 List of Dish Network channels 7900-7999 List of Dish Network channels 7400-7499 List of Dish Network channels 7500-7599 List of Dish Network channels 7600-7699 List of Dish Network channels 7700-7799 List of Dish Network channels 7800-7899 List of Dish Network channels 7000-7099 List of Dish Network channels 7100-7199 List of Dish Network channels 7200-7299 List of Dish Network channels 7300-7399 List of DirecTV channels 400-499 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 500-599 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 600-699 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 700-799 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 800-899 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 1000-1999 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 2000-2999 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 9500-9999 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 300-399 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 200-299 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 1-199 (United States)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge properly because the material is more useful that way. it is however not correct that all these are straight duplications: the lower numbered ones such as List of DirecTV channels 1-199 (United States) are in more detail; the later ones are apparently prepared for expansion. But if all the information could be gotten in one list, that would be satisfactory. This is really just a merge discussions--that discussion can be appropriate here also. Many merge discussions are really matters of style and user convenience, and this is one of them. I agree with the nom that this is classic almanac territory; as Wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia ,but includes many elements of almanacs, that's no argument against having it here also. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 31 July 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.
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 redirect to Speech Debelle. JForget 00:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Speech[edit]

The Art of Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one is a slam dunk case of WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Previous PROD (by me) was removed by an anonymous IP editor without comment or improvement to the article. By the way, I see no problem with mentioning at the artist's article that a new album is in the works. But what's known about the album now is not even close to what is required for an album article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:16, 31 July 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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Yates[edit]

Travis Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently not notable, at least not yet, I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Bringing it here to get more eyes on it. Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. He had (at the age of 12) the lead/title role in a hit West End musical. I added a couple of references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references have been added, plus a google search reveals more shows starred in. Plus he has a long term role in a british soap opera coming up.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. Being a BLP, another comment or 2 would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - His profile in the venerable Manchester Evening News is a good source, and he's already listed in IMDB with a good number of credits: I don't see any reason at all to delete on grounds of notability. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:34, 31 July 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.
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. JForget 00:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cedarsoft[edit]

Cedarsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While getting bought out by AlienWare can be notable, I'm not sure a company who maxed out a $5 million of sales of year is notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure that any of this is even verifiable. I couldn't find any mentions in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not because of the sales — notability has nothing to do with meeting some arbitrary income figure. It's entirely about the presence or absence of reliable sources, but those are clearly lacking here. If an article's been around for four years, and we still can't actually figure out what individual city the company was based in (as opposed to describing and categorizing it solely by province), then there clearly aren't enough valid sources about the company to make it a keepable article. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 1 August 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.
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 UFO: Enemy Unknown. (already done) and the redirect is costless Scott Mac 13:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-COM : UFO Defense – A Novel[edit]

X-COM : UFO Defense – A Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NB and WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Claritas § 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't remember writing this article, but I probably split it out of the main X-COM article. I don't think it deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this novel fails WP:NB then so does the Star Wars novelization. I don't think anyone here would suggest the article for that novel be deleted. Kurt (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Claritas § 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it many times. I guess I wasn't particularly clear in my original comment, though I really do like to point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not policy. Anyway, my point was that on the one hand, we have a novel based on what is arguably the most famous motion picture of all time. On the other hand we have a novel based on what many sources have called the greatest computer game of all time. There is nothing in the Star Wars novel that specifically meets WP:NB, just as there is nothing in this novel that really meets it. What I was trying to illustrate in my comment was that both books meet the spirit of point #3 in WP:NB. At least what I would interpret the spirit to be. Kurt (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be so kind to show me where the article for this Star Wars novel is, I'd like to check whether there are any concur s about its notability.--Claritas § 21:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the game it novelizes. But then someone already did this... 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 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.
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 speedy delete A10. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worn Me Down (song)[edit]

Worn Me Down (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song does not appear to be notable on its own to merit an article. Further, the precision title is unnecessary; if someone things this page is necessary, it should at least be moved (without redirect) to Worn Me Down. But again, why is this particular song with having an article? There's no indication why. — Timneu22 · talk 12:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Aspects. I just created the redirect for Worn Me Down, so this redirect may not be necessary. But since the creater of the article felt that the "(song)" was necessary, there seems to be at least some question as to whether some users may attempt to come to this topic via typing in "Worn Me Down (song)" in the mistaken belief that a dab is necessary. Since redirects are cheap, I think redirect is preferable to delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep & move to Worn Me Down, and replace or merge content with the content in Theornamentalist's sandbox when that is ready. The content of the sandbox article convinces me that this song is notable and can be expanded beyond a stub, and thus keeping is appropriate per WP:NSONGS. However, it should be titled "Worn Me Down", not "Worn Me Down (song)". Rlendog (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It appears to be the most popular song on the album, having charted on billboard(mag) and was an AAA top 5 hit, this article speaks sufficiently about it (albeit negatively) and here, about a paragraph speaking positively on it, appeared on a soundtrack apparently has been covered by a capella groups, listed as a top pick single from a billboard columnist, featured song off of her EP, was the first single off of her first album, made a video for it, has appeared on all of these albums, mentioned as a fan favorite here and a hit here. I also remembering hearing it in a ton of commercials and stuff(I know theyre not RS's but just to list them for now TV Show and a commercial, idk, this seems like its swayed towards redirect, but if not, I would be willing to rewrite something for it - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article cannot be expanded. A redirect of Worn Me Down (after deleting this too precise title) is the only way to go here. — Timneu22 · talk 18:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment; Worn Me Down was already created as a redirect, so now we have duplicates. The redirect is correct; this one should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duh. Rlen stated he created this, above. — Timneu22 · talk 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - If the consensus on this is to "keep" (or if there is no consensus), this article can (and should) be moved to "Worn Me Down" over the redirect I created. This title could remain as a redirect regardless - if the article is kept, it should of course redirect to "Worn Me Down" (which will occur automatically as part of the move). Although it is probably unnecessary as such. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment is what I've mentioned enough? - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I still don't see why it can't be a redirect. Then there's the confusion of having two separate titles right now (and this one is wrong). — Timneu22 · talk 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not extremely in support of its own article, but I do think it meets the notability requirements, I remain in support for a weak keep and would be willing to rewrite it, but I won't be upset if it is decided for a redirect. Maybe someone else can give input? - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename but keep it should be at Worn Me Down, and since it is apparently a top 5 hit, it should have its own article and not be a redirect, so I would vote no to a merge. Once the redirect is replaced by an article, then this content can be deleted as this is so minimal, it hardly needs attribution! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be taking a break for the night (it is friday), but here is what I've been working on so far - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:59, 7 August 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.
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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vundo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vundo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. --Hm2k (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 July 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.
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 keep. sufficient consensus that she is notable enough due to extensive coverage JForget 00:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Sellers[edit]

Victoria Sellers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Celebrespawn's main activity seems to be getting herself in trouble. No notability, serious BLP questions -- her sorrows are referenced, but even so do we need to shout them at the world? == no article. Herostratus (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is nothing of encyclopedic value in the article: it is just child of celebrity plus gossip. Notability is not inherited: being the child of notable parents, or having a notable friend, is not sufficient. Having legal problems is not notable. Yes, some space-filling gossip articles have been published, but nothing encyclopedic. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Without making a value judgement about her contributions to humankind, she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time. The subject is a topic on which users of the encyclopedia are likely to have interest.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP states "Biographies of living persons must be written...with regard for the subject's privacy...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". WP:BLP trumps WP:NOTABILITY. Herostratus (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notorious in her own right for her various brushes with the law and questionable companions. The newspapers have just lapped it up, making privacy a moot point. Posing for Playboy also indicates she has no few concerns in that area anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. And the standards employed by the papers don't negate WP:BLP. Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that Playboy comment is WP:OR, but the horses have bolted the (news) corral, you can't unscramble this egg, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of multiple stories in independent sources. A public figure. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the events she has been involved with appear are notable WP:NEWSEVENT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS, and has different standards of notability. I hope! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject of multiple reliable sources, even international coverage, and not merely in gossip rags. The story in The Independent clinches it for me: "[Her deportation from the U.S. to the UK] marks a sad and typically chaotic end to the reign of one of Tinseltown's most notorious party animals. For two decades, Victoria Sellers has been a walking symbol of Hollywood excess, a hard-living socialite whose instinct for trouble surpasses those of both her famous parents combined. Recalling her wildest days recently, she described a 20-year blizzard of cocaine and amphetamine abuse. 'I did drugs because I didn't really like myself, and I didn't like myself because I was doing drugs,' she said. 'It was crazy. I was just going round in circles.'" This is not the story of someone merely born to notable parents who has been hounded by gossip rags (cf. Suri Cruise): Sellers has independently maintained a high social profile, done interviews, and attempted to boost her own fame through high profile venues, such as Playboy and a reality TV show. So I think the BLP concerns for privacy are moot here. That her notability is mostly notoriety doesn't change anything, notwithstanding all the unelaborated, abstract invocations of BLP. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...maintained a high social profile... and attempted to boost her own fame...". Exactly. She has accomplished exactly nothing of note whatsoever in her lifetime. We do not have categories Category:Losers or Category:Famous for being famous. Her career is not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. We are not required to host unencyclopedic articles just because a person might meet the standards of WP:GNG. If anything, the idea the she would be pleased with the additional notoriety gained by having an article here militates against such an article. We are not a tool for self-promoters. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should be careful about sliding back and forth between two different (and contradictory) rationales: clearly my comments as to her own purposeful activities to achieve/engage with her notability were meant to rebut your arguments above that there are relevant privacy concerns here. That she may be considered a self-promoter does not affect a judgment of her notability either way in the slightest, because we don't exclude article subjects just because they intentionally tried to achieve notability (an obviously irrelevant consideration and unworkable standard that would have dire consequences for most biographies on WP). Nor is this Wikipedia article itself an example of her self-promotion; all of the reliable sources upon which this article is based are independent of Sellers. So your comments about Wikipedia not being a tool for self-promotion have no relevance to this article.

        We also do not limit Wikipedia to articles on people who we think have made constructive contributions to the world, which would also be an unworkable and completely POV standard. I don't think Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian have made any lasting contributions to...anything...but they are indisputably notable despite being, in my POV, useless (see also Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau for someone I've often thought of as a 19th century Paris Hilton; when the first and most apt word to describe someone's accomplishments is "socialite", you probably haven't done much to advance civilization). And how could I forget: The New York Times ran a feature entirely about Snooki for god's sake.[109] Such is western culture. I think this is overused as a retort, but here it is appropriate: please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and rethink your comments. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 2 August 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.
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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squiz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Squiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is largely promotional in nature and lacks references. I've looked about for references and am not finding anything beyond the usual press releases. Company and software appears to me to be non-notable. Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references that are RS are not lengthy, in-depth and do not demonstrate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unambiguous advertising: was founded.... with the aim of providing new levels of control, flexibility and efficiency in enterprise online publishing and web content management. They are, in other words, yet another commercial web host, one among hundreds of thousands, and this article makes absolutely no case that this one is particularly significant. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company is a successful Australian software developer. The refs are relevant. Some of the clients mentioned in the refs are eminently notable. These are non-trivial mentions by independent 3rd parties/ leading Australian newspapers. It needs an edit to read less like an advertisement but this is a problem common to virtually every software company on WP.AWHS (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially rewritten this article and added 5 notable references.AWHS (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 July 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.
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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol (band)[edit]

Sol (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un-referenced non-notable band. -- Silentdowner (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The references provided by Michig show some, not overwhelming, evidence of notability. That in combination with the East Coast Music Award does indicate passing the notability threshold.--Oakshade (talk) 02:23, 7 August 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.
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 keep. no arguments for deletion except the nom JForget 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel Institute of Technology[edit]

Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- post-graduate degree awarding institution. TerriersFan (talk) 19:17, 31 July 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.
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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Process Environment Block[edit]

Process Environment Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was proposed for deletion by User:Ironholds, who claimed it's about a Win32 data structure that is no more notable than any other Win32 data structure. I then deleted the article once the proposal for deletion period had expired. The author later contacted me to ask for it to be undeleted. I personally think User:Ironholds is right, that the data structure is hardly specially notable, but the author has a steadfast opinion that the data structure deserves its own article, so I have undeleted the article and nominated it for deletion as advised at WP:DRV. My vote is weak delete. JIP | Talk 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to very weak delete (if there is such a thing). I'm still not convinced this particular data structure is notable, but the recent changes to the article have improved it at a lot. JIP | Talk 19:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Ironholds was 100% correct. Wikipedia is not a list of technical specifications, or a repository of source code, or a Win32 reference manual. Reyk YO! 22:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant features of really major computer programs are notable. The article is not a "list of technical specifications" nor "source code". There is an overlap between the detailed information in a reference manual and the summaries in an encyclopedia. This seems the appropriate level of detail. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd call this a significant feature as primarily a private, mostly undocumented data structure, however the article has changed radically since the initial listing here [111] --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There seems to be enough info in RSs to write a good article, since it's pretty good now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - articles like this make Wikipedia more useful and relevant. I'd like to see it mature before we decide to delete it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:58, 31 July 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Majd[edit]

Omid Majd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR.No references. Even in Persian, most of the sources are blogs and no reliable sources.Farhikht (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 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.
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 no consensus. No agreement on the suitability of the sources provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard in Rhyme[edit]

A Wizard in Rhyme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Suggested by a couple users at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Her_Majesty's_Wizard. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neither of the above two "keep" arguments is very valid. The two links given by Whpq are both to very brief coverage, one of them to an entry in a list of sequels. Moving to Jclemens's comment, firstly "Author is clearly notable" does not indicate notability of the series of books, as notability is not inherited. The question is "is there significant coverage of this series in reliable independent sources?" and neither in citations in the article, in the links above, nor in web searches, is there much evidence of that. Incidentally, the statement "Author is clearly notable", as well as being irrelevant, is questionable in itself. The article on the author is tagged for sources, and gives little indication of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're mistaking "article subject is notable" with "article demonstrates notability of subject". The former has to do with how the world exists, the latter has to do with the state of Wikipedia articles. This is why WP:BEFORE exists: to make sure that a failure in the latter, which can be remedied by editing, isn't confused with the former. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JamesBWatson. BE——Critical__Talk 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the coverage is significant or extensive, but merely listings in various indices of series and thus incidental. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_31&oldid=1142641201"