Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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


 * Delete - Porn is swell. Topless chicks are swell. Wikipedia articles about obscure porn movies which purportedly have won dubious awards are not swell. Not worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment As Cherryblossom1982 points out, Jasper Sharp, leading English authority on Pink film, states that P*G is not just a reliable source on the genre, but the most important journal covering the subject. There is no question of its reliability in the pink film genre. Dekkappai (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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, cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 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    for a reliable source, calls them the Pink Film "Academy Awards" (アカデミー賞). As far as the film not being a first prize winner, if the awarding authorities from "the best magazine on the subject" choose to give awards to more than one candidate, we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". That would involve cultural bias, POV and OR to make such decisions. In summary, this is a film which has won a significant award given by a prominent magazine and is described in a reliable source. I know of no connection between PG magazine and the [sic] "porn-marketting machine in japan"; if there is one, a source would be welcomed. Incidentally, pink film has always been produced and distributed by the major film studios in Japan. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WHere is the extensive coverage on this film that demonstrates notability? It didn't win an award (again, eighth isn't "winning"), leaving aside the question of the value/notability of the PG magazine fan poll.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". Actually that's exactly what we have done.  See for example "a well-known and significant award or honor" or "a major award for excellence".  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Dubious notability. English title appears to have been made up arbitrarily by the author to boot. --DAJF (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We don't delete articles on notable, significant films based on cultural and moral bias. Comments about "titties" and "porn" show the ignorance and bias going into some of the votes here. The Pink film is a hugely significant part of Japanese cinema, and has been for nearly 50 years. It is, basically, all Japanese independent cinema. To equate it with US/western "porn" is culturally biased and ignorant, and nominating this article based on that bias is tantamount to attempting to censor coverage of Japanese independent cinema. Read the Pink film article for details. Many significant figures in Japanese cinema have worked in this genre. Just one example: Yōjirō Takita, the winner of last year's U.S. Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film started in this genre, made a hugely significant contribution to the genre, and this work is a significant portion of his work. The Pink Grand Prix is currently the main award in the genre. Anglo pink film scholar Jasper Sharp, and mainstream Japanese sources have noted this in several writings cited in the article. All films awarded at this ceremony are notable simply due to this one award. To claim they are not is to make a laughing-stock of Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and encyclopedic coverage. Coming in eighth in a genre which produces over 100 theatrical films a year is significant-- more so than hundreds of comparable English-language films. Also, this film was directed by Yutaka Ikejima, written by Kyōko Godai-- a notable writer covered in two English-language books on the pink film-- and distributed by OP Eiga. Read the articles on that director and the studio for some background. Are we to censor this because of the belligerent ignorance of a few Anglo prudes? I strongly suggest that anyone who purports to be interested in creating an encyclopedia which includes Japanese cinema as a subject area, review their !votes. Because I can tell you, your Delete vote is WRONG here. Pink films just like this one, are covered more and more by mainstream English-language texts on Japanese cinema. This is nothing less than an effort to censor an entire genre of Japanese cinema based on the cultural and moral bias of a few Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Cultural and moral bias?" No. There is no substantial coverage -- anywhere -- of thse individual films. Your bullet points up above, for instance, have nothing to do with this film. Where are the sources that examine the cultural signficance, the impact, the reviews, etc... of this film? Also -- tone down the rhetoric (i.e. calling me a liar below).Bali ultimate (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also Among the many completely incorrect statements in the nomination, "the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan" stands out as particularly grossly dishonest. Dekkappai (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per comprehensive rationales of Cherryblossom1982 and Dekkappai, wow this is a fun crusade.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * "SM Queen" Naomi Tani was nominated for a Japanese Academy Award for work in pink and Roman Porno.
 * 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.
 * Noted (mainstream) Japanese film critic Tadao Sato calls pink film director Kōji Wakamatsu, one of "Japan's leading directors of the 1960s."
 * (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"?
 * 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.)
 * 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)... For an Anglo-centric Wikipedia editor to dismiss films of the genre as "titties" and "porn" is a reflection on the educational background and the limited world-view of that editor, not of these films' place in world cinema. Wikipedia should realistically cover world cinema, not reflect the bias of individual editors. Dekkappai (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the reasoned comments above that avoided rhetoric and antipathy, as notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Western (or personal) POV should never be used to negatively color discussion of Eastern film, Eastern art, or Eastern culture, as cultural standards greatly vary. Calling something from another country "obscure" is a bit much, as WP:UNKNOWNHERE is not a criteria for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it may be worth noting that neither this article nor any of the other pink film articles up for deletion are considered noteworthy enough by Japanese natives to have Wikipedia articles yet, so "Anglocentric" or "cultural bias" arguments are a bit flimsy. --DAJF (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are certainly free to deny the existance of cultural pov if you wish, but WP:UNKNOWNHERE is still no valid reason to delete. Through reading the offerings above I determine that their is some quite negative rhetoric being used in a few comments that is reflective of pov... if not cultural, then personal... but pov nonetheless.  It also worth noting that en.Wikipedia has nearly five times the number of articles as does the ja.Wikipedia, and a topic not (yet) being in another Wikipedia does not imply nor impune notability.  It is the existing notability of a topic, no matter what the topic is, that allows consideration of articles.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JA-Wiki has far fewer editors, and none, that I am aware of, who are currently specializing in pink cinema. (Note, however, that they have 2,850 articles on Japanese adult video performers, so we have a long way to catch up there. Or are we, rather, supposed to delete every article on which they have not started an article yet?) They do have articles on comparable pink films (地獄のローパー、緊縛・SM・18才 / S&M Hunter for one), and the film under discussion here (奪う女 中出しの誘惑 / Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie) is listed in the filmographies of Rina Yūki and Eri Akira. So it is entirely probable that this film will eventually have an article started at JA-Wiki. Dekkappai (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 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 Notability (films), only a general indicator it might be if there are RS for things other than the mere fact of winning the award.  It's the existence of RS treating the film as the subject at length that is the measure of WP-notability.  This film could be better treated in a list of films that won the award, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Winning a notable award is proof of notability both in the real world and at Wikipedia. Notable subjects in foreign languages/cultures/different time periods are more difficult to source. That is the purpose of subject-specific "notability" definitions, not to create further "notability" hurdles. The assertion of notability, and the proof of its notability are in the article. "bare statements of fact" is encyclopedic style. I could embellish, and then I'd be accused of "fan" writing. Working in this genre for several years, I know that sourcing is out there on films with this much notability, and will be added to this article. This is a completely appropriate stub on a notable film. Deleting an article of this much notability while retaining hundreds of English-language films of much less notability is practically the definition of systemic bias. It is bad for Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Notability_(films), "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 ], "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." OP is a major studio, and the award is proof beyond its "merely having been produced". There is no valid reason to delete this article. Dekkappai (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The context from WP:NOTFILM: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: [...] The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." It is not "false" to say this film fails NOTFILM; it fails because it is one of those exceptions where a film won an award but RS do not exist.  As I stated above, an award is an attribute that generally indicates that RS may exist for a film, an award is not a proof in and of itself of Notability.  There must be RS for things other than the fact the film exists and won an award.  NOTFILM doesn't mean one can speculate such sources exist or speculate that they will be created in the future if a film won an award, it's only thought to be likely that they may exist, and one must actually have the sources in hand ideally at the time of article creation, but if not then, now.  They should not be a challenge to find if it is notable.  Find them and I'd be quite happy to change my recommendation. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrectly interpreting WP:NOTFILM. Your claim that all films must ALSO pass GNG makes WP:NOTFILM entirely useless. "OK, we got all the sources we need to write a Feature Article, now let's see if it passes WP:NOTFILM." No. Actually, the award, and the other ways that the film pass NOTFILM are proof that the film is notable. Reliable sources do exist but because of cultural, linguistic, and other matters we have not yet located those sources. The sources we DO have could not possibly be MORE reliable-- the leading journal covering the genre, and production information from the Ministry of Education. Subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NOTFILM help to prevent biased coverage by users who incorrectly assume that sourcing for all subjects is equally available-- not to create a redundant check. This is a notable film. More sources exist. A well-sourced stub with proof of the film's notability is sufficient until those further sources are found. Dekkappai (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Further evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM The film easily passes point 2 of Notability_(films) mulitple times: ("The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.") Yutaka Ikejima, the film's director, and Kyōko Godai, the film's writer are highly notable filmmakers in the pink film genre. As a Pink Grand Prix winner, this film is significant in their careers, yet details about the film would be inappropriate in their biographies. Hence, deletion of this article would be absolutely wrong for Wikipedia. How many times does the article have to pass WP:NOTFILM before this AfD nomination and the other three inappropriate, POINT-nominations are thrown out? It's obvious Notability is not the issue here. Dekkappai (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * Keep What right do we have to declare an award in a notable Japanese award ceremony as unimportant? There are over 20 Oscar category awards and even getting nominated for just one estabilishes a certain notabililty. So how would we as non experts tell that a place 6 award in Japan lacks relevance? At least I have not seen any prove for this here. I am also impressed of the deep knowledge that Dekkappai and Cherryblossom1982 have in that field, so there is nothing to add to their comphrehensive explanations which even for an (open) western eye should make the inclusion of this article plausible. Both main editors are hardworking experts and would be loss for Wikipedia when stopping their contributions. Furthermore the nominator lacks obviously and without any doubt WP:NPOV in this area which even goes to name-calling of involved editors. Testales (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. The Pink Grand Prix is not a "major award", and coming eighth place is not an award win anyway. Epbr123 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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",  and English Pink film scholar Jasper Sharp calls it the high point of the year for the pink film community. Honestly, Epbr123, you and I have had our differences, but I still expected better of you. Dekkappai (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As others have pointed out, NFILMS is used to show when it is expected that coverage will exist. In this case there is doubt whether NFILMS applies (8th place being called an award win?). As such, we should look in more depth to see whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. These sources do not seem to be available so the article should be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone who has worked on subjects on Japanese popular culture knows that Japanese sourcing is notoriously lacking on the Internet. The little that comes available is usually quickly removed and blocked from archives. As a film released nationally by a major studio, with notable personnel and having been awarded in its genre, this film certainly has coverage which meets GNG. That is the point of making these additional criteria-- to prevent biased coverage by forcing subjects in all languages to adhere to a criterion set up with the English-speaking world in mind. If this article is deleted, I have dozens of other articles on Korean- and Japanese-language films which have won major national awards-- the equivalent of our Academy Awards. Since the exact same situation applies to these films, they will need to be deleted, and I will remove them to a project which is genuinely interested in a non-biased, uncensored coverage of world cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There either are sources or there aren't. If no one has found sources -- online, in a library, in a book, somewhere -- then, well, we don't have sources. 8th place in the Pink Grand Prix fan poll by the way is not the equivalent of winning an academy award in japan. That would be winning the Japan Academy Prize (film). No one is arguing for the deletion of articles on any winners of Japan's biggest film prize (or Korea's, or any other country's). Hundreds of stubs on porn films that didn't win any award (let alone the "Japanese Academy Award") are another matter.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. These films have been awarded by the major ceremony in their genre. All awards in the ceremony are confirmations of notability. Major studios and personnel were involved in their making. If WP:GNG invalidates this, it equally invalidates the articles on other films which only have awards and notable personnel to justify their existence here but no immediately available "significant" coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it came in eighth place in its little genre ghetto. Wide notice, attention, acclaim, fame, infamy? No evidence of any, anywhere. That's where you and i differ.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In a genre which regularly sees over 100 releases, it was named 8th Best Pink Film of the year by the major award covering the subject. As I have repeatedly stated, any recognition at ths ceremony is a real-world confirmation of notability. I mentioned at one of these discussions that Bitter Sweet, which only came in 10th, has been released to English-speaking audiences on DVD, and far from being the gutter-porn you ignorantly imply, is one of the best Japanese films made this decade in any genre which I have seen. To delete films like this based on pre-conceptions of "porn" is cultural bias. Where we differ is that you have no interest or knowledge of the genre-- as your mischaracterizations of it repeatedly show-- and you have shown no interest in Wikipedia covering the subject of world cinema in an encyclopedic, unbiased and uncensored manner. If this article, and the other three, are deleted, dozens of other articles on award-winning films must also be deleted, and hundreds on foreign-language films that have not won awards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think your personal opinion that Bitter Sweet is "one of the best Japanese films made this decade" has much bearing on the absence of sources on the separate movie under discussion here. Critical reception? Cast interviews? Box office receipts? Budget? Controversies? Contextualization (i.e. if a movie is seen as influential/groundbreaking in some way). There is none of that available. I'm very interested in notable "world cinema" being covered; in fact, just for you, I'll write an article today that demonstrates the difference. Take a look at my contributions if you're interested.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I look forward to your-- what?-- 8th article, on Wikipedia, after you are forcing a contributor of over 600 articles to stop. In fact I'll contribute one and even dedicate it to you. I think Rape! 13th Hour would suit you just fine, GNG-wise. In the meantime, here are some AfDs for you to start: Blood Relation, The Yellow Handkerchief, Extra Human Being, Station, Sad Story of Self Supporting Child, Comic Magazine, Market, and The Incident. I tried to show you just ones I've started, but there may be some started by other editors. I'll drop a note at the Korean and Japanese film projects to let them know of your upcoming AfDs, so that they can back up their work in preparation to moving it to a project actually interested in an unbiased, uncensored coverage of world cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure your new article is on a pink film, Bali-- or your offering is irrelevant. Dekkappai (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I took your recommendation to check your contributions. Attempting to belittle a well-sourced stub on a notable film by comparing it to Feature Article criteria strains credulity when compared to "articles" such as this and this. And make this Pink film article you're working on your 7th, not 8th "contribution" here-- One of the alleged 7 is actually a disambiguation page. Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: You're comparing your work on "the highest grossing in Indonesian box office history" to a Japanese indie production? Why not go whole-hog and pull up Gone with the Wind? And, expert editor that you are, not one of your links works yet. I had to go into the article to verify the bloggy bits you had. I expected something at least as GNG-worthy as Wife to Be Sacrificed... Yeah, I'm real impressed. Now, with one film article under your belt, I look forward to your further campaign of harrassment and censorship. Dekkappai (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You really should cool down. If there are sources, an article can be written. If there aren't sources, then it can't and it shouldn't. That's my position on the matter.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. You target my work for deletion then "civilly" request I cool down. There are reliable sources in this article-- A government film database, and the leading journal covering the genre. This is a well-sourced stub on a notable film, which will do until we have found sourcing comparable to your article on "the highest grossing [film] in Indonesian box office history". Dekkappai (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are both out of line. Stop it.  Now.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) Frankly, this is getting a little silly. The issue is whether this film is notable and whether there are sufficient reliable sources to sustain a verifiable article on it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly I find it offensive to characterize concerns over the invalidation of WP:NOTFILM as "silly". Strictly applying WP:GNG will result in the deletion of hundreds of articles within the areas I have worked-- Korean and Japanese cinema. This should concern any editor who is here to contribute. There is no question that this film is notable-- award-winning, produced by a major studio, distributed nationally, involving notable personnel-- as proven by reliable sources, and that the article is entirely sourced-- reliably. The question is whether being notable is enough to satisfy Wikipedia's editor-created and English-biased GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussing how the WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM interact is far from silly, and I didn't say that it was. The spat you're having with Bali Ultimate, on the other hand, is.  Let's all get back to discussing the question Should this article be deleted, shall we?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This entire mass-deletion was a result of this spat, and Bali ultimate's oft-stated bias against the subject. In effect, my contributions were searched and targeted for deletion, so forgive me for taking this slightly personally. This deletion campaign will also continue after these AfDs have closed. Let's not insult each other's intelligence by pretending otherwise. I just request the honesty of nominating for deletion all the other thousands of articles against which Bali is not biased which have LESS notability and LESS reliable sourcing than this one. That, obviously, would be too much to ask. Dekkappai (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A "Find sources" search using a garbled translation from Japanese is not exactly fruitful. For instance "奪う女　中出しの誘惑" perhaps more accurately translates as "Take out the temptation of being a woman"... with "creampie" nowhere in the translation... but that is still not the actual title.  So it'd be helpful to get input from Japanese-reading Wikipedians who could accurately translate some of the following Find sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one of my translations, I think. I'll check and move all these over to direct transliterations if that's now the way to do things. (I always preferred transliterated titles, but at one time transliterated foreign titles were considered a no-no because of this being English Wiki...) I don't claim my translating abilities to be the best, but that one you've come up with, Michael, is spectacularly bad :-) "中出し" is "Nakadashi" which is the Japanese for Creampie (sexual act). The rest of the title ought to fall in place: 奪う can be either "Rob" or "Fascinate / Charm" 女 =Woman, 誘惑 = temptation, so, "奪う女　中出しの誘惑" Fascinating (or Robbing?) Woman: Creampie's Temptation. All moot if the article is deleted, will move to "Ubau Onna: Nakadashi no Yūwaku" if it's not. Dekkappai (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I bow to one who has the knowledge. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some things you can't learn from the dictionaries... like Korean swear-words, which I've learned first-hand during heated discussions with my wife ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 많은 감사  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd give you some choice epithets, but might get reported... so instead, 천만에요! Dekkappai (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 항상 미소로 역경 중에 좋은  -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep According to my detailed arguments for the other articles. Sufficiently notable in its genre, as shown by sources.    DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Are pink films notable? - yes.
 * Is the Pink grand prix the top award for pink films? - yes.
 * Is a film nominated for the pink grand prix notable? -yes. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a modest article about a film of some notability. It says little, but what it does say depends on sources that seem adequate to the job. It may well be that no source will allow WP to say any more; if this is so, then the article should remain short: elsewhere, we don't delete articles because they'll never be able to exceed 10 kB or whatever; we shouldn't do so here, either. &para; We read at the top of this AfD that The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. The lack of an apostrophe (and indefinite article) suggests some haste, but I think this makes a point that merits some thought. Imaginably, yes, editors could find titillating images and then create articles in which use of those images would be fair. And clearly a fair number of people are offended by WP's use of photos of tits. The standard answer to that is that WP is not censored. However, it is censored to some extent, and I think rightly so. Is this image undesirable? It shows a topless girl in an inviting pose, but there's no hint that she's a minor, that there's any coercion, or that there's any other particularly worrisome ingredient. So it does not concern me. &para; One (poster-unrelated) reservation, however. If there is no English title, I'm unhappy with naming the article with a nonce English translation, however thoughtfully done. The original title (romanized) would be better -- though the translations are most charming. But this matter can be discussed later. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Welcome to this little tea-party, my favorite Deletionist. I very much agree with the transliteration option, but was told that, since we're English-speakers here, translations should be made. I do intend to move to transliterations, should these articles survive. Though I don't disagree with your observations about stubbery on notable subjects being acceptable here, I do have faith that this one will grow eventually. I suspect all it would take is for yours truly to purchase a few back-issues of Hayashida-sensei's publication, and the article would immediately expand. Also, as I pointed out somewhere, I've seen 10th-place rankings at this award get English-subtitled releases years after their Japanese release. One I am thinking of is Bitter Sweet (2004), which I heartily recommend as a fine example of Japanese indie cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Say what? A "tea-party"? Don't tea-bag on me! -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tea-bags are an abomination, and a symbol of all that is wrong with the modern world. Believe you me, if I were to go on a crusade, it would sooner be against tea-bags than pretty girls' titties... but we digress... Dekkappai (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep although I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as has been suggested. I'm concerned about the paucity of sources and the notability of the awards.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Further evidence of the authority of Hayashida Yoshiyuki-- editor and publisher of P*G, and host of the Pink Grand Prix-- in the area of Pink film. He is the co-author of the books:
 * Generation sex : Japanese "pink" movie posters
 * 女優林由美香 / Joyū Hayashi Yumika on the life of Pink film (and AV) actress Yumika Hayashi Dekkappai (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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) 19:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. 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.
 * 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. And neither "Pink Grand Prix" nor the equivalent "Pink Taisho" generates any relevant Google Scholar hits.
 * The fact that people who later became notable may have been involved in this particular film is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:NOTFILM requires that a case be made for significance in the context of a person's career. None of the episodes of Whirlybirds or Bonanza or Bus Stop (TV series) directed by Robert Altman are individually notable. (NOTFILM also omits any suggestion that readers polls provide any basis for demonstrating notability.)
 * The overall lack of sourcing to establish notability remains completely unaddressed. Citations to comprehensive databases, even government-operated ones, may establish existence, but not notability (otherwise a listing on the Social Security Death Index or the Delaware registry of corporations would be sufficient to prove notability); and the PG fansite citations lack both independence and significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such POV complaints and WAX arguments have been repeatedly and soundly refuted... though with the length of this discussion, perhaps it was overlooked. The GNG is not the final arbiter of notability... specially for films that have their own cultural significance in their own country and for different reasons than a film might here in the United States. Notable in Japan is plenty notable for en.WIkipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's simple really. The Pink film is a highly notable genre in Japanese film, and has been for 50 years. The Pink Grand Prix is the major award in that genre, has been since 1988, and this is all sourced at the article. This film was awarded at that ceremony. Fellow Porn Project members who have voted Delete here have created hundreds of less reliably-sourced sub-stubs on less-notable subjects. Hundreds of major award-winners in Japan and Korea are equally or less-reliably sourced. Hundreds more of articles on films in world cinema have less claim to notability. Do we admit this film stub belongs, or do we delete thousands of film perfectly acceptable articles? And wipe away Epbr123's Anal-Scene winners with them? Dekkappai (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As its own notability in Japan has been established despite efforts to denigrate the genre and the genre awards of a Japanese-notable topic, there's no need to compare it to other stubs which have also survived to serve the project. However, this discussion does seem to underscore a sad Anglo-centricism in such considerations, doesn't it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. I don't mean to discredit any one else's contributions of sourced content, or to state that they should not work on any subject area in which I have no knowledge or interest, or to decide how many articles I think should be allowed in that area, and to delete it down to fit that limitation. I only wanted to point out the double-standard being applied here. Dekkappai (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.