Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil: Difference between revisions

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 | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • 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 - 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. If this sounds like Yogi's deja vu all over again, that's because it is. Somebody is spamming articles on cheesy Japanese porn movies. Advertising. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 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 [1], 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 [2] 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 [3] [4] [5] 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)[6]... 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 [7]], "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.[8], 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]

• In fact, since pissing on my article contributions at the ANI board to distract from constant edit-warring on the part of a fellow Deletionist is what led to these attacks on these articles in the first place, let's look at them: 451 + 135 + 49, for a total of 635 I have started in Silent film, Korean and Japanese cinema-- mainstream and erotic, and other areas. Contrast this to to a whopping 7 from the nominator, and a stupendous ONE (a page move to a disambiguation page) from the valued contributor who is allowed to edit-war whenever he wants. My knowledge of what constitutes a "notable" film has been created through experience in actual hard work at this project, not through contributing NOTHING, and telling others what to do. Dekkappai (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Coming eighth place is not an award win, and the Pink Grand Prix is not a "major award". Epbr123 (talk) 08:18, 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) 13:18, 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[9][10][11]. 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,[12] 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]

• 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]

• I think the transliterated title in bold, then in parentheses the Japanese with a translated English title following in quotes in lowercase and not in bold might be the best practice, following the model of Ran at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films. There are a lot of relevant pages, e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, Wikipedia:Romanization, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles) but none of them seem to address this problem exactly. I don't think translating a title is original research actually, it's like WP:Translation which is fine, but ideally it should be clear as to whether a title is an English translation or an official English title that it was released under. It might be helpful to start a discussion how to handle foreign titles that received no English-speaking world release on one of those pages. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:23, 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."[13] 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 [14], [15], [16], [17], 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 [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. 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]

  • More Also, along with Pink luminaries such as Masao Adachi, Yutaka Ikejima ("Mr. Pink", the director of a couple of the films targeted), Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Mitsuru Meike, Banmei Takahashi, Kôji Wakamatsu, Yumi Yoshiyuki (writer/director/actress of one of these targeted films), and Mamoru Watanabe, Yoshiyuki Hayashida is given second billing in the documentary on the Pink film genre: Pinku ribon (2004). Dekkappai (talk) 19:23, 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. [25] 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. [26]
  • 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.[27] 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: [28] 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.