Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Push!!


 * 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   delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the issue of notability, which is the central inclusion guideline problem in this discussion.  Sandstein  19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Push!!

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All that I could fine was a Wikipedia reprint for this Japanese adult magazine. SL93 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found a bunch of Wikipedia reprints with the original title Fantajennu. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not really sure under what criteria you're saying it should be deleted. It's a ongoing, 8-year old magazine whose existence is verifiable. Granted, it has a very difficult to Google name, but that's no reason to ax it. It should be noted that it's also not just a porn rag, but a proper magazine with articles and interviews on the eroge industry. For instance, an interview from Push!! was cited for the GA article Little Busters!--Remurmur (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria is WP:N. I never said that it was pornographic. I said that it is aimed towards adults. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - While this subject may hold some personal interest for me, it currently does nothing to establish any semblance of notability. I'll be happy to revise my position if independent, significant reliable sources establishing notability are found. To responde to earlier comments, the fact the subject of the article is used as a reliable source in citations does not indicate the subject's notability (for the purpose of having an article of its own).   Salvidrim!   19:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to point out I believe this article may be notable, but does not establish the fact, and I was unable to find sources to dismiss reasonable doubt. If reliable sources are found and implemented to support notability, as I've said above, I'll revise my !vote.  Salvidrim!   19:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This seem like a nice article,sure It needs a rewrite.184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment reply - The above editor is a long-term disruptive editor known for improper behaviour and discussion antics, who has a habit of stalking others' contributions (namely mine) and post silly or disruptive comments for the sake of it.  Salvidrim!   23:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re - What?184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Being a nice article" is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Sergecross73   msg me   23:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Salvidrim. Not only does it not establish notability, it doesn't do much of anything. There's virtually nothing here to begin with. Sergecross73   msg me   00:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Has been published for 8 years, as a printed magazine, and in multiple languages and nations.   D r e a m Focus  07:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not about what the magazine is, this is about the article's notability, and I'm afraid no amount of your OR will help. Do you have an independent, reliable source for your claims?   Salvidrim!   17:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't just say a magazine is notable if other magazines have mentioned it. That's just ridiculous.  Getting mentioned a couple of times does not make something more notable than being published for 8 years and currently sold in multiple nations.  You have to use common sense.  WP:BURO WP:SENSE   D r e a m Focus  20:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You point to a common sense essay. I point to WP:N. Anything better than your personal beliefs? "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused." So it is an abuse to have notable reliably sourced content when this article is not notable and has no sources? SL93 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the second time, you claim that the subject of this article is notable because it "has been published for 8 years and is sold in multiple countries" without providing any kind of reliable source.  Salvidrim!   20:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Their current publisher only has issues going back to 2008 on their website. This Wikipedia article and the more detailed Japanese one  say it started in 1993.  Click on the image of the cover, and you see words there, it not just in Japanese.  Why give it an English name, if it was only sold in Japan?  Amazon.com only has one product by this name I could find, that their art book, but it has English words on it.   Is that common to have just some English words randomly tossed onto things?  Anyway, its been around for years, so people must buy it, and no reason not to list every magazine out there with enough readers to keep it going for years.   D r e a m Focus  20:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If your only sources are a Wikipedia article (possibly the least RS-compliant website) as well as synthesis from a first-party source (your analysis of the language of the words on the magazine cover), I'm afraid you're not making a very solid argument as to why this subject is notable enough to have an article -- in fact, I believe your arguments, or lack of, quite convincingly show that it is indeed non-notable (for the sake of this project).  Salvidrim!   20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not seeing any third-party coverage or sources to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a bit of searching on Japanese websites and while some blogs do cite this as one of the major eroge magazines, those are not RS. I couldn't even find an RS to confirm claims about the length of this magazine's publication. DreamFocus's argument about use of English does not hold: Japanese publications frequently include English on the cover or elsewhere as a stylistic flourish, not because they are intended for sale outside Japan. I see no source saying this is sold outside of Japan. Unless someone can find publishing industry stats on circulation, confirming that it is a major magazine in an established publishing genre, I can't see it as notable. It is harder to find RS for such fringe genres--which just because they are fringe may not necessarily be non-notable--but as long as we have rules for notability, this doesn't cut it. Michitaro (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Notability and WP:V The only reference is the company that makes this which also has no article so a redirect is useless, if the magazine has really been running for 8 years and gained notability then there would be things out there but sadly it looks like there is not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any possible reason anyone would write about a magazine? A magazine that has been around that long surely has a lot of readers.  That equals notability by common sense.   D r e a m Focus  00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. Any number of them; financial status, (profitable? making money? going out of business soon?) criticism of content, accolades and awards, stuff happening in the news, etc. Come on now, it just seems like you're just trying to make up with excuses as to why this doesn't get any coverage in reliable, third party source now... Sergecross73   msg me   01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands, this article is little more than a promotion for the publication. Without references it's simply fails WP:V. RadioFan (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per DreamFocus, I trust his findings that it has been published in many languages and nations and that it likely also meets the GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's odd because it was only his assumption. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he didn't really find anything, he just linked to a copy of a cover on amazon and a Japanese wiki link. No actual info has really been provided by him as far as I can see... Nothing close to a WP:RS to back up what he's saying.... Sergecross73   msg me   19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some say they put English words on the cover just for decoration, it not actually sold in English. So, my mistake.  But being published for that long, is still a valid reason to keep it.   D r e a m Focus  22:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that fact is verifiable, of course. Where's your source?   Salvidrim!   22:33, 7 January 2012 (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.