Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue


 * 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) 08:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The claim to notability for this film is that it "won... sixth place" in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." 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) 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Possibly the Pink Grand Prix does not pick a "best film" and give nine runners up, or does not have 10 "places" exactly, but picks the ten best films of the year, which is not uncommon for critics or associations to do. That said, at least in English, the film is lacking the sort of significant coverage from Reliable sources 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. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it picks a "best" film. 1998s winner, for instance, was Subway Serial Rape: Lover Hunting.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply Actually it picks a list of "Best Ten" pink film releases for a given year. This can be seen in the headings of the listings: - 1988年度ベストテン "Best Ten, Year of 1988" to [http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~p-g/award/2009.htm - 2009年度ベストテン "Best Ten, Year of 2009". The claim that only the #1 spot is "notable" is completely original to the nominator here, who has never shown indications of knowledge, interest, or even tolerance of the subject. The top five films are screened at the ceremony. Obviously this is a lower-profile genre of Japanese cinema, so the sourcing comes slower to us in the English-speaking world. However, films all the way down the list have later seen English-language releases, reviews, etc. sometimes decades after their initial release. Bitter Sweet (2004) is one I've seen recently, and it stands out as a particularly fine film. It was only given 10th Place, but to dismiss this thoughtful, moving, well-made little indie film as merely "titties" and "porn", based on its genre and its poster, would be ludicrous. The "Ten Best" films are just a fraction of the total pink film output, which is usually more than 100 annually. The award is a confirmation of notability. That fact trumps the possibility that sourcing on a film outside our language, area or time-period may not available to US-based, English-speaking editors right now. As a pink film released by a major pink studio with major personnel, it will have been reviewed, covered in Japanese sources which cover the genre, as well as mainstream sources, so the sourcing is there. I don't yet have access to those sources. But the article as it currently stands is a stub giving basic information on a notable film. The article can only expand, since all of the sources used are reliable, and all of the facts are sourced. This is the way Wikipedia has worked in the past, and this is how it should continue to work. Dekkappai (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm curious why after the nominator's assertion was proven false, and your question as to the notability of all the films on the list was proven to be answerable in the positive, you then vote Delete based purely on the Anglo-biased GNG. (GNG makes the assumption that sourcing for all "notable" subjects in all languages is as easily available as that in English. English sourcing is far, far easier to locate on the Web than Japanese sourcing which, even when it does come available, is soon taken down and removed from archives. When ignoring other signs of notability relevant to Japanese subjects, this results in extremely biased coverage.) Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 2 August 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) 21:18, 31 July 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) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Systemic bias, if these are claims you feel so strongly about, then about 90% of Wikipedia's film articles should disappear. This genre is being specifically and improperly targeted.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The nominator and the only "Delete" so far grossly misrepresent the facts here. The Pink film is a notable genre, the Pink Grand Prix is a notable award, the film is made by notable people, it's a notable film. The Pink Grand Prix is in no way "an appendix of the porn-marketting machine". The article is about a notable pink film. A pink film made by a major studio, major personnel, and which has been awarded by a major awards ceremony -- the major awards ceremony in its genre. P*G is the major journal covering the pink film genre, and has been for over 20 years. It is noted as such by Jasper Sharp, leading English authority on the pink film genre, in . Also several mainstream Japanese sources call the Pink Grand Prix the "Academy Awards" of pink. In a genre which typically produces over 100 works per year, every film awarded at this ceremony is "notable" since it has been noted by the major award of the genre. There is no real question of notability here. The sourcing on the film itself is skimpy in the article. Typical of these types of POV-crusades, the mass-deletion makes it hard to add sourcing to each of the articles. Though the proof of notability is already in the article, I will attempt to add more sourcing later. Dekkappai (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just another non-notable film churned out by the Japanese porn industry and with minimal/dubious sourcing. No one is arguing about the notability or importance of the Pink film genre in general: the argument here is whether this particular title (and similar others) is notable enough to justify a self-standing article. The English title also appears to have been made up arbitrarily by the article author. --DAJF (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * THIS PARTICULAR TITLE was awarded by a notable award ceremony in its genre. Somehow I had the impression you were one of the "honest" deletionists... Dekkappai (talk)
 * 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) 06:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per reasoned comments above. Notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia.  Western (or personal) POV should not negatively color discussion of Eastern art or Eastern culture, as cultural standards greatly vary.  Perhaps someone from WP:CSB might wish to join in here.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I fail to see the relevance of systemic bias?  There's no dearth of articles on pornography generally, or on pink film, AV idols etc.; quite the contrary it would seem.  Anyway, I would argue for the deletion of a non-porn English-language film that won an award but for which there were no RS for V coverage; for me it's not about this being porn or foreign.  Mass-deletion might not be such a problem if there were not mass-creation of substubs.  It would perhaps be better for one good article (or good stub) to be created at a time instead, particularly knowing that porn tends to be a perennial target for AfD.  I'd like to see more thorough coverage of pornography on WP, but for me that does not mean having articles about specific films and performers about which there is practically nothing to be said, no possibility of encyclopedic coverage.  Pink film is WP-notable, many pink films are WP-notable, I accept the award as apparently WP-notable, but getting a WP-notable award does not mean every film that received the award is WP-notable, or that it is WP-notable enough for its own article per NOTFILMS, as I stated in my comment above. Having an award is not in itself proof of notability; it is an indicator there might exist enough reliable sources for an article, and it is really the RS which are the proof of notability.  If there aren't RS, an award-winning film may merit only being included on a list, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:16, 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) 19:25, 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) 20:08, 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) 22:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You are incorrectly interpreting WP:NOTFILM. The award indicates the film is notable and that reliable sources exist. 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. 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) 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No "interpretation" is necessary; the guideline is quite clear as I quoted it above, but I welcome and encourage everyone to read all of WP:NOTFILM for themselves. If there is really some question about the meaning of it, perhaps it should be raised on the NOTFILM talkpage or Notability noticeboard. I'd add, the general notability guideline must also be met; subject-specific guidelines are not trump cards.  Where are, e.g., the RS with significant coverage that address the film directly in detail? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong. Yes, let's please look at NOTFILM. The first sentence in the section says, "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits..." The section then enumerates those merits which this film passes. Your interpretation-- yes, interpretation-- creates absurdities such as insignificant English-language films getting their own articles because we have access to newspaper databases, while award-winning Japanese films are deleted. I have worked on Japanese Academy-Award winning films-- and no "titties" or "porn" were involved-- and those articles have less sourcing than this one. Again, your interpretation makes WP:NOFILM entirely useless. This interpretation is incorrect. Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 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) 04:22, 4 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.") Yumi Yoshiyuki, the film's writer and director, and an actress in the film, is a highly notable filmmaker, and one of the two most important female directors in the history of pink film. Lemon Hanazawa is a multiple award-winning actress. 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) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I missed noticing this one in the mass deletion effort before but read my rationale and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness, they apply to this film as well. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not going to repeat my arguments another time just because somebody who gets regulary his own |dedicated sections on ANI started a mass deletion campaign simply based on a massive lack of WP:NPOV as already shown. Testales (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. The Pink Grand Prix is not a "major award", and coming sixth place is not an award win anyway. Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 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 (6th 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) 08:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh... but the GNG is not the final and only arbiter of what is or is not notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't normally work in this area, but I saw this an AN/I. There's a key question here: is winning an award, but not the top award, notable? There are at least 3 prominent analogous situations: 1 Nominees for the Academy awards--these are a select number of films, not any film any member happens to nominate--they're essentially finalists, not the plain meaning of nominees. Do we accept this as notability? (though actually, any film here would meet the other pars of the guideline, too, at least for the major categories.).2 The Booker Prize--there are three stages of nomination, a limited number of nominees,  a longlist of about 20, and a shortlist of 6. Books making the shortlist  will   always be notable on other criteria, but I think achieving this can fairly be called a major award. ; even a book making the longlist will usually be notable on other criteria. . 3 Nominees for the Nobel Prize -- this again is a selection--thousands of people can propose candidates, but the 200 or actual ones being considered for the various prizes are selected by a panel. This is usually not used here as a formal criterion, because the official list of nominees is not announced, so there is no RS, just someone saying it on the basis, I presume, of rumor. I assume anyone on it, though, would be considered notable.  Now, for this particular award, it seems from the article on the prize that there is an official shortlist of  the top 10. By analogy, it would be at least probable notability. It would intrinsically seem reasonable to me that the 10 best films in a major genre like these would be suitable of coverage in an encyclopedia, not just the best one of the year. Not reading Japanese, I assume the statement is correct that   the sources do show this is the major award in the subject   DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Japan Times article above by Jasper Sharp has the quote, "...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards". He goes into more detail on it in the book. Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Have I not seen this very comment somewhere before? Ah yes, so I have. A cookie-cutter AfD -- how bizarre, when en:WP offers Template:AfD footer (multiple). A modest and adequately sourced article on a film of modest but discernible notability. Nothing problematic here. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles aren't similar enough to warrant Template:AfD footer. It was reasonable to have hoped significant coverage could have been found for at least one of these films during the AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That's why i kept it separate. If you do a batch nom you get snark too. As we've seen, no sources have been found for any of them though (just vague assurances that sources will emerge somehow, someday).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If this article has no sources, then perhaps the footnotes I see are mere hallucinations. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only source is the fanzine that runs the award show. There are no in depth looks at these movies. There are no reviews. There are no discussions of their importance and impact. There is no coverage -- at all -- outside of the directory listings used to "source" the stubs. (the "refs" on this page may have you confused; they don't discuss this or any of the other movies under discussion at all).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I know all that. I don't think I am confused. Now, which factual claim within this modest article do you find unsourced or inadequately sourced? -- Hoary (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect you already know this as well, but the issue isn't about the accuracy of any factual claims. The issue is whether its reasonable to have 200 unexpandable Pink Film stubs. Epbr123 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as they're neither substubs nor expanded beyond what's sourced, unexpandable stubs seem harmless. -- Hoary (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They're sourced, they're notable, they're encyclopedic, and they're harmless. During a few years of doing actual work in the subject, I've come to the conclusion that the claim that they any one of these articles is "unexpandable" is false. As a matter of fact, some may have been expanded well enough to run for GA. As an Admin in the "Porn Project", it seems you would be applauding this work rather than attempting to remove it. Oh wait, you did once. ""For your work on Japanese porn articles." Though we might now quibble over the word "porn", I do thank you for that. Dekkappai (talk) 17:57, 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) 18:27, 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) 19:21, 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) 21:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such POV complaints, WAX arguments, and attempts to denigrate culturally notable awards has 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. 01:24, 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. 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 articles? And wipe Epbr123's "Best Anal Scene"-winners away with them? Dekkappai (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anal wiping (oh dear!) would itself raise at least one major question. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently proving that Wikipedia IS paper... at least the talk pages and discussions are... if only metaphorically... Dekkappai (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I have new favorite most important article. This one is even of a far bigger importance for the mankind than my old favorite was and will surely help many people who seek for knowledge or need an advice to solve such a difficult problem. So it's only understandable why we need here an extraordinary high threshold of inclusion to match the high standards of relevance which are demonstrated by articles like these. Testales (talk) 14:45, 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. 15:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Wikipedia is not a film database like IMDb, IAFD or the Japanese Cinema Database or a mirror for them, thus when there are only enough RS to create unexpandable stubs such as these and the others cited in other genres or nations, then, yes, one should delete these thousands of substub film database entries until such time as RS with significant coverage ("sources [that] address the subject directly in detail") actually exist to write encyclopedia articles about them. To cite an essay, One sentence does not an article make. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is a mirror article of none of those sites. It assembles information from reliable sourcing and includes from one of those sources proof of notability. Are thousands of substub film articles and articles on other subjects with equal or less sourcing and claim of notability going to be deleted rather than kept to be improved? If so, this runs in contradiction to many of the basic claims Wikipedia makes, not least of which is this well-known one from Jimbo Wales. If this one is, and those are not, then "notability" is being applied to delete sourced, notable material in a selective, subjective and in a biased manner. Dekkappai (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to stubs which can't be improved by expansion because sources don't exist to do so. Jimbo's point on that page, perhaps not so well known if it's not incorporated in a policy, guideline, or essay, seems to be about articles of some length and detail on trivial subjects, and notes we'd react differently to multitudes of one-line articles, if I read him correctly.  And that we would delete those one-line substubs should not affect how we treat a lengthy article on the same subject, and I agree with that.  I would not argue for the deletion of a lengthy sourced article or an expandable stub on a pink film (or whatever) on the basis of how I would treat an unexpandable stub.  He doesn't make reference to the problem of stubs that aren't expandable as opposed to those which are, so this doesn't really speak to the main point I was making.  I don't see where the selectivity, subjectivity and bias comes in, since I wrote that all such articles should be deleted regardless of nation or genre. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the crux of your Delete vote, then, is that this article is unexpandable, I would like to see evidence of that. I have worked in this area for a few years, and have expanded several such articles quite substantially. The confirmation of notability-- the award-- is an indication that this film has certainly been covered in Japanese sources. I have found this to be the case in other articles. As with those other cases, some of those sources will be found during the expansion of the article. Based on other Pink Grand Prix-winners, it's highly likely the film will be re-released, possibly even in an English-language edition, and further sourcing will then be created and added. In the meantime, there is no reason that a sourced stub on a notable film should not be allowed to exist here. This is a standard practice at Wikipedia, and there is no reason to make an exception only for these five films. Dekkappai (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to prove a negative? Hmm.  An award is not a guarantee RS with detailed coverage exist, nor in itself a guarantee of notability, only an general indicator that RS may exist, as NFILM says explicitly.  It would be easy for it to say "winning an award is an automatic guarantee of notability and an automatic guarantee that RS exist," if that is what was meant, but it does not.  Speculation on the future creation of RS isn't good practice; the RS should exist at the time of article creation. I'm not sure this discussion is going to go anywhere.  It would be good if someone other than the usual people participated, possibly. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you state a negative with such certainty, I'd like to see it proven. Again, my experience in the subject tells me sourcing already exists, will be found, and more will come. No, I can't prove this right now. Whether it ever does or not, every piece of information in the article is reliably sourced, there is a sourced proof of notability. There are many stubs on (for example) mainstream Korean and Japanese films which have won their country's top honors. To delete those articles based on application only of GNG would clearly create biased coverage at WP. There is no more reason to remove this article which was awarded at the major ceremony covering its genre. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and a reasonable presumtion that additional sources likely exist, even if only in Japan, should be enough to allow its remaining based upon what has been offered so far toward its notability... unless there is a call being made to change this project to the English-ONLY Wikipedia or United States-ONLY Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Seems the discussion got stuck, maybe I should place a RFC tag here to generate more input... ;-) Seriously, it's getting ridiculous - why does nobody close it with no consensus as already done with one of these 5? Though a keep might be better and be it only for practical reasons as there is no point to repeat this discussion already in a week or so. Testales (talk) 03:34, 9 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.