Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Queendom of Eros


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A Queendom of Eros

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. Only claim of notability is that the studio that made this porn movie gave it a promotional award. No GNews or GBooks hits on the English- or Japanese-language versions of the title. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - even though I question the legitimacy or validity of the specific award, that is not a criteria for notability under WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG. I have no idea if moodyz is considered a major award in its field but a reliable source has reported on it.. Further, the movie has received coverage in 2 different articles from that same source and has had independent review. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not an "independent review"; that's a product page from a DVD retailer. The other "references" are from "All About Inc", an advertising service that seems to resemble examiner.com more than it does a reliable news organization. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hullabaloo is not quite correct about these sites. AllAbout.com is essentially a competitor to Yahoo in Japan which, like Yahoo, makes much of its money through advertising. Like Yahoo it also publishes genuine news articles as well as its own content (one of its main selling points is hiring "experts" to give "individual" information on products, events, etc.). The two cited by Morbidthoughts are not press releases, but authored by Kemuta Ōtsubo, who is a journalist specializing on AV who writes for some of the major weekly magazines. I don't know much about the Kobooks site, but it should be pointed out that the review can look independent because, if you read the Japanese, it actually criticizes this DVD. Michitaro (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NFILM. Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As explained above, I don't think Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's arguments against the citations introduced by Morbidthoughts hold, and so I am inclined to agree with Morbidthoughts' argument that this DVD had significant coverage. It does make sense as well: this was produced by a major AV producer to commemorate their fifth anniversary and was thus publicized more than their average DVD. I think the articles by Ōtsubo are just examples of what coverage there was. One problem with judging the notability of AV is that independent coverage tends to be in the print media, which we can't access. But this seems to be getting more than the usual. Michitaro (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone know what sites are reliable sources for this sort of thing? Someone who speaks Japanese will have to look for reviews.  I don't see anything in English.  Was it officially released in the English language anywhere?   D r e a m Focus  07:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just another adult DVD. Not convinced that this passes WP:NFILM. While at first glance, the article appears to have an impressive list of references, on closer inspection, none of them constitute reliable third-party coverage. --DAJF (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NFILM. What makes this stand out from all other similar titles? --Ifnord (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Only claim to significance is an award it awarded it's self (that sounded better in my head than it looks on screen, but you get the gist). Mt  king  (edits)  02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.