Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo Topless
- Tokyo Topless (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)
Non-notable website, unreferenced for 3 years, claim to notability unsupported Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep According to a news report on the site, it's the most successful non-commercial site in Tokyo. The fact that this link has been removed the article because of WP External Link rules makes it no less reliable or notable. And if you enjoy zaftig Asian ladies as much as I do, and you're not at work, feel free to give it a look. You can thank me later: [1] Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It says claims to be the first adult site in Asia, so it does claim notability... whether that's right or not, needs verification/sourcing... 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The site has been around for 15 years, an eternity for a porn site. It has a traffic ranking of about 5000 in Japan according to Alexa and some 13% of its audience in the US, pretty impressive numbers for a non-commercial site in a niche field and with little advertising. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - these assertions of notability would be stronger with verifiable citations to some reliable sources. The website just cannot be used as a source for these assertions about itself. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Reply Hi, Kenny. To be honest, I have little faith that this one will be saved. I think it should be, and can be, but it's beyond my means. The site might not be a "reliable source" for its claim, but I can state from personal knowledge that it's been online since '95. Also, that it's a highly popular site. Also, that all the high-profile models and actresses mentioned (and removed) in the article have made appearances at the site. Also, that it's nearly impossible that the site has not received multiple coverage in the Japanese press-- either the very large near-mainstream tabloid-style publications, or in publications specializing in the big-bust genre. Again, I can't prove any of this, I can just state it from personal knowledge. I know that this satisfies nothing at an AfD, and I've been anticipating this AfD since I first saw the article started... The only thing near-passable I've found are the citation to the book I added to the article, the TV news video (which really ought to pass as secondary coverage, and a "reliable" claim of "notability", but is discounted on a technicality). There's also this column which mentions that it has received over a million hits: [2] Other than that, I'm resigned to seeing the article deleted unless there is someone who has access to the articles there are bound to be on the site... A comparable English-language/US site would far easier to source & save, and I think this a good example of how applying "notability" criteria "evenly" to all subjects-- as if they were equally easy to source-- results in biased coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also, this is an issue that arises repeatedly with Japanese subjects, due to the fact that good Japanese sourcing is notoriously absent from the Internet. Naturally, it's an issue that is compounded with niche subjects. That editors who are aware of this, and the bias it creates, can blithely cite GNG without noting that it states right at the top of the page it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions" is cynical at best. Dekkappai (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Special pleading, I'm afraid. Occasional exceptions maybe but you're arguing for "repeated" exceptions for Japanese articles. The internet is not the point. Notability requires multiple reliable sources -- I'm old-fashioned enough to think they are more likely to be on paper! This is the English-language Wikipedia, so naturally English-language sources are preferred and if not, translations are requested. That seems sensible rather than cynical to me. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply you were being cynical above. You give indications of listening to reason, rather than giving a drive-by, two-word link to a guideline (three words, counting "Delete"). Of course I'm arguing for repeated exceptions for Japanese articles, because they are being subjected to criteria set up by English-speaking editors with an unintentional bias towards English-language sourcing. Of course there is Japanese print sourcing for these subjects. That's my point. It's out there, and it proves the subject is "notable" by WP standards, so how do we find it? English-language print-sourcing is by-and-large either available, or indexed online. Not so with Japanese. Even mainstream newspapers, when they do put their articles online, remove them and block them from archiving. Even Deletion-inclined editors who work in Japanese subject areas are aware of this. To sneer at this as "special pleading" I'm afraid indicates indifference to biased coverage in support of arbitrary guidelines. Dekkappai (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- You can always claim WP:IAR... on the basis of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and WP:BIAS. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply you were being cynical above. You give indications of listening to reason, rather than giving a drive-by, two-word link to a guideline (three words, counting "Delete"). Of course I'm arguing for repeated exceptions for Japanese articles, because they are being subjected to criteria set up by English-speaking editors with an unintentional bias towards English-language sourcing. Of course there is Japanese print sourcing for these subjects. That's my point. It's out there, and it proves the subject is "notable" by WP standards, so how do we find it? English-language print-sourcing is by-and-large either available, or indexed online. Not so with Japanese. Even mainstream newspapers, when they do put their articles online, remove them and block them from archiving. Even Deletion-inclined editors who work in Japanese subject areas are aware of this. To sneer at this as "special pleading" I'm afraid indicates indifference to biased coverage in support of arbitrary guidelines. Dekkappai (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Special pleading, I'm afraid. Occasional exceptions maybe but you're arguing for "repeated" exceptions for Japanese articles. The internet is not the point. Notability requires multiple reliable sources -- I'm old-fashioned enough to think they are more likely to be on paper! This is the English-language Wikipedia, so naturally English-language sources are preferred and if not, translations are requested. That seems sensible rather than cynical to me. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also, this is an issue that arises repeatedly with Japanese subjects, due to the fact that good Japanese sourcing is notoriously absent from the Internet. Naturally, it's an issue that is compounded with niche subjects. That editors who are aware of this, and the bias it creates, can blithely cite GNG without noting that it states right at the top of the page it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions" is cynical at best. Dekkappai (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Reply Hi, Kenny. To be honest, I have little faith that this one will be saved. I think it should be, and can be, but it's beyond my means. The site might not be a "reliable source" for its claim, but I can state from personal knowledge that it's been online since '95. Also, that it's a highly popular site. Also, that all the high-profile models and actresses mentioned (and removed) in the article have made appearances at the site. Also, that it's nearly impossible that the site has not received multiple coverage in the Japanese press-- either the very large near-mainstream tabloid-style publications, or in publications specializing in the big-bust genre. Again, I can't prove any of this, I can just state it from personal knowledge. I know that this satisfies nothing at an AfD, and I've been anticipating this AfD since I first saw the article started... The only thing near-passable I've found are the citation to the book I added to the article, the TV news video (which really ought to pass as secondary coverage, and a "reliable" claim of "notability", but is discounted on a technicality). There's also this column which mentions that it has received over a million hits: [2] Other than that, I'm resigned to seeing the article deleted unless there is someone who has access to the articles there are bound to be on the site... A comparable English-language/US site would far easier to source & save, and I think this a good example of how applying "notability" criteria "evenly" to all subjects-- as if they were equally easy to source-- results in biased coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)