Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futanari (2nd nomination)


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

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Futanari
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is completely unreferenced (even after over 2 years), and filled with original research. As this seems to be a neologism it may fail WP:NEO. Article fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Fei noh a  Talk, My master 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment the article is 6 years old, not 2. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable drawing subject.Falcon8765 (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Previously nominated at Articles for deletion/Futanari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon8765 (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem notable but more references are needed to help back that up as well as article work.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2009 (AT)


 * Comment This article looks like it hasent had much attention given or chat in the talk page either on the issues (Not to say that none has been given just not alot in the past few months, I credit the editors that have tried their best to help). It is always good to address things in the talk page before a deletion. Can any references be found for this? Japanese Google helps too and I will do my best to look. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2009 (AT)


 * I didnt even get to two websites as possible references when I found a possible reason, because of the subject in question there are alot of 18+ sites out there that talk or have this and im not chancing my computer to viruses. If someone is looking for references though that is the place on google and google.co.jp/.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2009 (AT)


 * Comment Previous AfD gives two solidly scholarly sources and a few others, and pointers for other places to look. (That little attention has been paid to the article since then is irrelvant: AfDs should be judged on the topic potential, not actual article.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Non-porn source: http://www.animeph.com/voc.html --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment woe be to those who google image searched for sources. -Falcon8765 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like there are good references that were found for this, my choice now is to Keep. This article should have potental and the problems should be fixed with the references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 1:19, 20 August 2009 (AT)
 * Keep Reliable source: book preview. But uggh... --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * also: university newspaper story --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Enough stuff to prove it is not a neologism. If anyone could fix the article on the spot with the materials found here and there, i will vote keep. It is pointless to provide evidences of notability & verifiability if they are not present in the article and/or in the article talk page because we will be back here for a 3rd Afd. So please anyone fix the article. --KrebMarkt 14:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or at least collect them on the talk page, even if someone isn't up to digesting them into encyclopedic prose. (I'd work on it now, but most of the sources, I can't read at work.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. If someone can locate the talkpage template (I know a "suggested sources" or similar one exists), switch to that. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added relevant links to the talk page. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget those in the first AFD as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that findings can be found in the article and talk page. If someone is willing to dig that heap of materials and make of it something cohesive & stylish to read, that would be worth a Barnstar. --KrebMarkt 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having finally gotten a chance to look through the sources pointed to in this and the first AFD, I'm convinced there's enough reliable sources talking about the concept that it is indeed notable as a variety of pornographic entertainment. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2009 (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.