Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravure idol


 * 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   Merge to Model (person). One of the things which has begun to annoy me at AfD is the poor quality of commentary. This is strongly illustrated by this AfD; of the 12 commenting users, not a single one has cited policy that I can see (although I commend the nominator on the quality of his initial post). Given the almost complete lack of reliable sources, which nobody, it seems, has tried to remedy, the most appropriate action is to merge. If it is a notable cultural phenomenon it should be included, but nobody here has demonstrated that it is an independently notable cultural phenomenon. Given that most of the useful content has already been merged by User:Roninbk (props for that) there's no problem from my end with someone WP:BOLDly redirecting it. I would ask all users to remember that AfD is not a vote - the strongest weight goes to the user with the strongest argument, and WP:GHITS does not constitute either. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gravure idol

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article consists of original research as it doesn't have reliable sources and, therefore, doesn't meet the criteria for verifiability or neutral point of view. Doing some search engine tests, I found no reliable sources about this topic in English with Google or using "Gravure" with Google Scholar, or Google News. All Google results point to websites that are not reliable or that are questionable sources. Considering this and that if fails in three of the main content policies, I also don't think that this article has notability to be included in Wikipedia and I believe that the article falls into what Wikipedia is not. Checking the Japanese counterpart, I also noticed that the Japanese article is full of original research and also doesn't provide reliable sources. The English article is essentially covering the same topic that the article Pin-up girl does. In my opinion, Gravure idol fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Pin-up girl. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Pin-up girl. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Gravure idols are a specifically Japanese phenomenon, quite different from pin-up girls. It is hard to find reliable sources because of the huge number of popular photo sites.  On the other hand, the fact that there are over 1.6 million Google hits seems to me evidence that they are notable enough. In addition, Wikipedia itself lists over 30 gravure idols, all identified as such.  I have added a reference to the recently established Gravure Idol award. There is no reason to merge this with Pin-up girl --- people looking for information about one are unlikely to want the other, and it is wrong to describe a Gravure idol as a pin-up girl. I agree completely that his article would be better with more citations, but to the best of my knowledge the facts are broadly correct and it is clearly notable, so there are no grounds for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The citation added, www.oneinchpunch.net, describes itself as a personal website: not a reliable source]. [[User:Kenilworth Terrace|Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The award exists, which is the point, and a search turned up a better reference. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable topic in the Japanese media area - Gravure Idols are definitely not the same as pinup girls and the information in the Pin-up girl article doesn't apply to Gravure Idols in Japan. Merging them would be forcing a Western point of view onto a non-Western phenomenon. The article needs to be improved, not merged or deleted. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick google search for 'pin-up girl' gives me the follwing hits with buzzwords: Retro, vintage, Retro Dresses, Pin Up Girl (1944), Retro Model, Classic ... Don't merge a cultural phenomenon from modern 21. Century Japan  with something that is perceived in the Western World with these words.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a good-sized article on the Japanese wiki about the term, so it does appear to be a notable item. Probably what needs to be done is someone translates and adds from the JA one. Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The size of an article does not determine whether an article is good or not. As I pointed out, the Japanese article, like the English counterpart, is full of original research and it doesn't have reliable sources. It has been tagged by the Japanese editors as containing original research since 2007, so it is not a trustworthy source to make a translation. Jfgslo (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has survived in the Japanese Wikipedia, even though someone tagged it as OR, precisely because it is notable. The Japanese page lists over 20 magazines that carry Gravure Idols (including extremely well read publications like Friday and Shonen Jump) and around 10 competitions involving them.  I would say that that is enough evidence for general notability. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is still there doesn't imply that it's a good article or that it should be kept. On the contrary, it just means that it is non-relevant article that is mostly ignored. And that still doesn't mean that the original research information is in any way usable by the English Wikipedia. The English article must fulfill the criteria of the English Wikipedia, which requires verifiability and notability, regardless of its status in other language versions of Wikipedia. As it is, almost nothing in the Japanese article is usable because it's original research. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely existing or being popular does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. That there are Japanese magazines that carry contests with models and call them Gravure Idol, does not imply that Gravure Idol is a topic that has received coverage by itself, it only means that there are contests with models that are called Gravure Idols instead of models, not that there it is topic that has received significant coverage. So far, there is no evidence that Gravure Idol has "Significant coverage" (sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.) Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a substantial cultural phenomenon in Japan. That it bears similarities to the 'classical' pinup girls doesn't necessarily mean it's the same and could be merged away into said article. --bitterMan.lha 09:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse existence with notability. While it may be something popular like a product, it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (apparently not even in Japan), so it fails the general notability guideline and does not qualify to have its own independent article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. Not quite sure how to proceed on this one. On the one hand, G4's International Sexy Ladies show routinely airs segments showing gravure girls. (Please don't ask how I know that, I was extremely, extremely bored.) On the other, I'm not sure how you would go about using those episodes to establish the notability of the phenomenon, (perhaps starting at http://g4tv.com/sexyladies/ might help) -- RoninBK T C 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that it is a substantial cultural phenomenon and is note worthy. Rick lay95 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)rick_lay95
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I can see where the merge proponents are coming from, but this is a pretty distinct concept from pin-up girl, as well as (generally) denoting a higher level of celebrity. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Higher level according to whom? Which author defined "Gravure Idol" as something intrinsically different than a model? Jfgslo (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fundamental function of a model is to sell clothes or another item the model is wearing or using. By contrast, a gravure idol is essentially selling themselves by way of their own image, and hope people buy their DVDs and so on. In other words, a model sells a brand while a gravure idol essentially IS a brand. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, according to whom? All that is original research. And a model (person) is not limited to that definition. In fact, Wikipedia's article about "model" includes "Gravure Idol". There is nothing in the "Gravure Idol" article that justifies its stand-alone existence since almost nothing is referenced and does not meet general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfection is not required. WP:IMPERFECT. No one disagrees that more reliable citations would be better.  Francis Bond (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfection may not be required but notability and verifiability are. And I believe that there are no reliable sources regarding this subject and that it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not even in Japan. Instead, it's purely original research and Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so it must be deleted from Wikipedia or merged with another article because the topic does not have notability to have its standalone article. The article has been around since 2006 and it has always been original research, so I don't think there is a need to keep it any longer. Jfgslo (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge (or perhaps move back) to Model (person) The sources that I can find,  (which admittedly appear very blog-like and unreliable as sources,) tend to indicate that the closest western analogue would be a bikini model, not a pin up girl. As it turns out there already is a section header on Model (person) for Gravure idols. Perhaps we should graft this article back into the Model article, until there is sufficient reliable sourcing to support a standalone article. -- RoninBK T C 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and BOLDly copied the substance of the article over to the Model (person) page. I have no problem if you want to include the information into Japanese idol as well, (it just seemed easier to me to copy it over to the Model article because there was already a spot set aside for it.) -- RoninBK T C 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good to be bold, but I think there is no consensus to merge or delete, so please be careful not to duplicate too much information. Francis Bond (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * merge to Japanese idol which itself is a mess, but the generic term Idol has much more coverage in this context. Hobit (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2011 (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.