Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese sex terms


 * 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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was asked to provide a reasoning behind my decision, so here goes: 1. If I count !votes I get roughly 21 dels, 13 keeps, that's a 60% majority for deleting, but really in no man's land between no consensus (ca. 50%) and rough consensus (ca. 67%). 2. The policy on WP:NOT is very much in flux over whether glossaries are exemptions to the Not a dictionary provision. Unless there is consensus to strike the exemption I prefer to stick with the status quo ante (still reflected in Lists (stand-alone lists)), which is that glossaries are acceptable. 3. Most importantly, the content of the article changed significantly in the last days of the debate thanks mostly to edits by User:JJay, and this change was reflected in a number of delete&rarr;keep changes and late keep !votes, so the early "delete not sourced" !votes are no longer on solid factual ground. Taking these three factors into account I did not see that consensus for deletion was established. This is a no consensus closure though so it can be renominated anytime. I recommend waiting three to four weeks for the policy debate to be settled and to see if the article improves, and consider renomination then. But of course I might be wrong, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Japanese sex terms


This list contains Japanese terms for sex, sex organs, sex positions, and so on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not be hosting random lists of foreign words. Although we do have some lists like this, unlike those there's no particular reason to maintain a list of sex terms in various languages, since sex-related articles on English Wikipedia are written in English, and those that are specifically on Japanese sex topics define all the terms they use. Exploding Boy 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Erm. Delete, obviously.
 * See previous deletion debate for this article at Articles for deletion/List of Japanese sex terms 2005


 * Delete. This article is inherently unverifiable. We have no way of knowing if these definitions are accurate. If anywhere, it belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia. Even then it is not encyclopedic. These are not unique concepts, such as might find in a glossary, they're just definitions of crude words in a foreign language. -Will Beback 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you call this inherently unverifiable. why would this be any less verifiable than american sex terms? Derex 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fail to see any merit in this ever-growing list of foreign language sex-slang. It fails what Wiki is not, so I'm suprised it's managed to stay up for so long. At best this article is an unverifiable list of foreign language slang with minimal use as any kind of reference point, and at worse it's just acting as a bulletin board for people to post titillating rude words from Japan. ShizuokaSensei 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per ShizuokaSensei, its not what Wikipedia is. James086Talk 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No comprehensible rational for deletion advanced (as far as I can see, all arguments are either a)factually wrong or b)essentially "I don't like it, for no particular reason".  WilyD 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh - this is clearly not a dictionary entry. Thus wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't apply.  There's zero plausible basis for even trying to assert it's a dictionary entry.  Clearly it's a stub or start class list - but being a stub is hardly a criterion for deletion.  It's hard to aruge that it's not a dictionary entry because there's no argument to be made - a cursory visual inspection reveals it not to be.  WilyD 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - How on God's green earth can you claim this is encyclopedic??! It does NOT meet WP: NOT. It is NOT VERIFIABLE in that there are no SOURCES. Bishōjo has no sources. Futanari is not sourced. Image club is just totally made up. I would strongly suggest that the people voting keep THINK about what they are voting to keep. There are some terms in the list that are legit, but the majority of list is an unsourced list of mostly unsourced terms that, if they belong ANYWHERE, belong on the Japanese Wikipedia. Please also look up in the dictionary the definition of encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. -- Shrieking Harpy  [[Image:Gay_flag.svg|17px]] TalkundefinedCount 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I said it's encyclopaedic because it is. I said it's verifiable because it is.  This seems like a fairly straightforward proposition - I'm not sure how you missed it. WilyD 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, folks, you gotta love inclusionists. Alright, let's examine:


 * 1) If you are using the definition of encyclopedic as "an alphabetical organization of fields of knowledge" then you are being pedantic. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, no matter how much it tries to fit a dictionary definition of encyclopedic. It is not a collection of verifiable facts. If you are saying that it is, then I respectfully think you are wrong and agree to disagree.
 * 2) If you are suggesting that articles, without sources, that are little more than stubs, that have existed in the same state for months, are verifiable, do you mean theoretically? Because, theoretically, anything is verifiable to some people. But it is not verifiable in terms of WP:V for a very large majority of terms on that list. --  Shrieking Harpy  [[Image:Gay_flag.svg|17px]] TalkundefinedCount 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, apart from being demonstratably not an inclusionist (I've compared my AfD votes and it's pretty clear I'm a "centrist" on the issue - my keep arguments for articles that are deleted are a percentage of my keep arguments that equal to the percentage of my delete arguments where the article is kept) I'll show what the problem is when you vote to delete an article without first reading it.
 * If an article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but not for "the spirit of an encyclopaedia" then voting to delete it clearly fails WP:NPOV. Rather than make value judgements about whether I particularly like a topic or not, I apply Wikipedia, she ain't paper and ask merely "Is it encyclopaedic?" - here even you admit the answer is yes, so I'll move on.
 * I'll ask is it sourced? For this article, the answer is yes - clearly it's important to read the article to determine whether or not it's sourced.  Merely guessing can result in the wrong answer.  Being sourced (such as this article is) brings the advantage of a vaguely NPOV test of notability - someone else has found it notable enough to document - this is (I believe) a much more NPOV test than Do I personally find this article interesting? WilyD 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - In addition to the problems we see alot with lists we also have the fact that WP is not a dictionary, not a slang archive. The article lacks sources and is unverifiable. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, things like "image club" are verifiable if anyone could be bothered to try; encylopedic. Kappa 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic.   While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post.  Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The justification for keeping the list is that it explains a variety of encylopedic topics grouped in an obvious way. Kappa 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't. It's just a list of non-English terms.  All the Japanese sex-related articles should already appear in List of sexology topics, and every article that uses Japanese terminology should already be explaining those terms within the article.  Exploding Boy 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. List of sexology topics doesn't explain anything, are you suggesting we add the explanations there? Kappa 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the list is also rather inaccurate. It might be better titled List of random Japanese words that some otaku think might sometimes be associated with sex. How the hell are "bishōjo" and "bishōnen" sex terms? (And in what parallel universe does anyone use the word "bishōjo" by itself to refer to eroge?) How is "dōjin" a sex term, given that dojin works are no more exclusively pornographic than Western vanity publications are? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. May well be verifiable, but shouldn't be here: belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. WMMartin 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, or even a regular dictionary. A big list of words and definitions beside them is called a dictionary. Slang is not only hard to cite, but it also means different things in different areas/eras. Also this is an english encyclopedia, so an article that primarily carries foreign langauge is not suited here. Not encyclopedic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if sources can be found. Singapore sexual slang terminology looks to me like a good example of what this article could be. I wonder why most of the articles linked to from this list aren't in Category:Sexual slang. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note. The artilce has had a "source request" tag up for the last three weeks. Apparently no addiitonal sources are available. -Will Beback 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the Delete votes. This is Wikipedia, not Sugoipedia (sou desu ne :P). Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, then Delete. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent per Wrathchild. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a precise list of terms on a given specific subject is authorized by policy. Terms such as bukkake, gokkun etc. are extremely well known and verifiable through tons of sources. I don't even understand the objection on that score. The nom seems to be questioning the raison d'etre of this list. Well, for better or worse, Japan and sex have been tightly intertwined in the western imagination since at least the 19th century. The interest in Japanese erotica is thus not new and is today a serious subject for critical examination and scholarship . The vast popularity of specific Japanese porn genres in the west is just a later-day manifestation of the previous craze for Japanese erotic prints. Given the cultural divide, it is entirely appropriate for wikipedia to maintain a list of this type for its mainly English speaking readers. --JJay 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Every term is either in or not in a dictionary; those that are in dictionaries are obviously verifiable. Verifiability is not an issue. Fg2 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete is not a dictonary. Arbusto 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (1) Dicdef. (2) What's verifiable already has its own article. Everything else is unverifiable. (3) This is another of many cases where a "List of..." should be a category. There already is Category:Japanese sex terms even in the article itself, so this list is redundant -- not to mention they're harder to maintain. Anomo 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So this list of foreign language terms with explanations is redundant with an incredibly useful list of foreign language terms without explanations? Kappa 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per the reasoning in the previous VfD. Useful list that points to useful articles, inherently encyclopedic and so on.  Grue   08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anomo. -- Hoary 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * Comment. Amen to that. ShizuokaSensei 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a place for content concerns. That's why there's an edit button. WilyD 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The lesson here is, never attempt to clean up an article after it goes on AFD. Kappa 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; encyclopedia =/= dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't understand how anyone can argue this is encyclopædic. It is a list of foreign words with definitions. Additionally, Haeleth is absolutely right about it being a very Western-otaku-biased "article" with very little Japanese language comprehension: even as a dictionary article it is not very good. The onus of explaining the individual terms should be on the individual articles, as linked-to from the Japanese Sex Terms category. Finally, do the 'keepers' not see the redundancy, all other arguments aside, of a "list of japanese sex terms" article within the overall category "Japanese sex terms"? Erk, 1345, 10 November 2006 (GMT-8).
 * For those not following the discussion, how is a list of defined foreign language terms redundant with a list of undefined foreign language terms? Kappa 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This iscnot what wikipedia is for.
 * Weak Keep Presuming the terms can be verified. Given that for some of the terms we have extensive articles on them it isn't unreasonable to have a list of all the highly notable Japanese sexual terms. The only issue is that it might make more sense as a subcategory of sexual slang rather than as a list. JoshuaZ 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable list. JASpencer 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, if you can't source it, delete it. Sources cited, so change to a keep. Seraphimblade 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary.  -- Stbalbach 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am not sure how this list is any more or less unencyclopaedic than any other list on wikipedia. How is this any different from the List of gay slang words and phrases, the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, etc...The terms are all verifiable, there is ample precident for this kind of lists, or lists in general.  If people think this list should be deleted, then the opinion should hold that 100% of lists should be deleated, as they are all equally unencyclopaedic.MightyAtom 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * List of gay slang words and phrases is at least defensible on the grounds that the terms are in English. As for the other article....  it's been AFDd at least 5 times.  Exploding Boy 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So I checked as to why that list survived. "Like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia." Seems like that could apply here as well. It is all verifiable info. Its interesting. Seriously, what is the point of lists at all, anyways? None of them are "unencyclopaedic." Delete this one, delete them 100%. MightyAtom 00:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts?ShizuokaSensei 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Has it occured to you that those articles may be just as deserving as deletion as this one? After all Wikipedia is not subject to precident.(actually the list of films with the word fuck is very well sourced, but is not a dictionary list) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with HighInBC's comment. I can't find a thing to verify most of these terms, but if they're easily verifiable, cite sources and I'll happily change votes! The main sticking point here is the lack of verifiability, so at least to my thinking, fix that and the whole issue goes away. Seraphimblade 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The books "Japan's Sex Trade" and "Japanese Street Slang" by Peter Constantine can verify some of these, but dictionary issues?... Pete Fenelon 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not sourced and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The cleaned up version of the page is just as invalid as the full version (which would have been better material for Wiktionary.) The cleaned up version consists of a list of links to other articles in the project. There's no need for that. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability. --Kunzite 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
 * Bukkake: A Japanese invention - worthy of inclusion
 * Chikan: Not unique to Japan - of little note. However, has a long and meandering article (lifting large sections from Rotton.com as a source) suggesting otherwise...
 * Ecchi: Links to the article for the English letter H. A foreign slang word for sex - of little note
 * Enjo kosai: The Japanese term for underage prostitution - at a strech worthy of inclusion
 * Futanari: Japanese for hermaphrodites - of little note
 * Fuzoku: Defined as meaning "sex culture" in Japanese Doesn't have an article. Of little note.
 * Gokkun: A genre of Japanese porn. Worthy of inclusion
 * Hentai: Defined as "pervert." This is a much wider part of sex culture, so worthy of inclusion
 * Delete per WP not a dictionary. Eusebeus 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- I voted to delete this before, but I've changed my mind, because the article is in different shape now. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but these are not simply translations of English phrases into Japanese but rather a completely different beast: sociological phenomena of sexuality in Japan, explained, and with articles about (most of) them.  This could maybe use a renaming of some kind, but this list is cut down to the essentials and is encyclopedic.  See Lists (stand-alone lists) and you'll see that this kind of list is much like other kinds of lists given there.  I can't help but think that many of the people who endorse deletion under the dictionary argument haven't noticed these points, but rather noticed the "list of ... terms" and didn't like the article concept.  So like I said, maybe renaming is a good idea, but I'm not sure to what.  Still, this goes well beyond mere "terms."  Mango juice talk 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep per changes indicated by Mangojuice and others, above. I think it is now definitely encyclopedic and fits the guidelines indicated on Lists (stand-alone lists). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep its sourced.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:55, 15 November 2006 (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.