Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shukan Jitsuwa


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Shukan Jitsuwa

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability - The article provides no significant coverage in reliable sources and has been tagged as unsourced since October 2008. EuroPride (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep ...and the Crusade continues... Highly notable Japanese tabloid. I suppose I'll have to do some sourcing to prevent the lazy, biased deletion of this. (Note: the nominator has been on a Crusade for weeks nominating articles with no indication of attempting to find sourcing.) Dekkappai (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I planned on doing work on other projects today, but because of this editor's moral-, national- or whatever-bigotry, my time is hijacked. But nobody gives a fuck, right? Business as usual at Bias-through-deletion-pedia. Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment 69 hits at English-biased Google news. Note: Japanese news media regularly removes stories from online archives. There are no doubt hundreds of print references to this publication. Dekkappai (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Here Asahi Shimbun quotes Shukan Jitsuwa as a source for the death of Hiroshi Okamoto, first president of Nihon Journal. Gee, is that red-linked? And would a comparable person in the Anglosphere be red-linked? Could it be that if it were started, some "concerned editor" would get it deleted rather than working on it? And that the comparable Anglosphere person would have too many defenders to succeed in deletion? Dekkappai (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Passes points 2 & 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (media): "have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" (over 50 years history, available on any newstand in Japan and many Japanese sources in the US), "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area" (quoted above by Asahi Shimbun). Anyone with knowledge of Japanese media should be able to expand and improve the article greatly. I trust that will happen, and EN-WP not become further biased by this article's deletion (hah!). I return to my own areas of editing interest. And if there's anyone here I haven't properly offended, I apologise. Dekkappai (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please calm down and take another look at WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Your accusations are baseless and your assumptions are unreasonable. The entire claim of non-notability could easily be dismissed with a single WP:RS source or two. Sources in Japanese language are acceptable as well, and you are more than welcome to provide them for our consideration. Similarly, if you feel that Hiroshi Okamoto can pass WP:BIO, feel free to go ahead and start the article yourself. Just don't forget to source it, for your own sake. — Rankiri (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is polite and appears sensible and reasonable, but I suspect it depends on a false premise: that the internet contains a significant amount of "quality" (citeable) Japanese-language content. Unfortunately, if you compare what's best in English on the web and what's best in Japanese, you soon realize that the latter isn't merely less in quantity, it's way lower in quality too. Indeed, I have trouble not saying that, taken as a whole, the Japanese language web (Japanese-language Wikipedia of course included) is crap. Looking for something like the searchable archive of the Guardian? Forget the idea, no such thing exists. Japanese newspapers are dismal to start with (see Freeman, Closing the Shop, Princeton Univ Press) and the anodyne articles that they do post on their websites are rapidly removed thereafter. So effectively what you're asking for is library research. This request may be a reasonable one, but anyway the web is unlikely to suffice. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that a country that ranks third in the number of Internet users, and whose language is the fourth most-used language on the Internet, doesn't have any digital book libraries and newspaper archives of its own? What about 300+ results for "週刊実話" on Google Books alone? Are they all unrelated? Besides, I never said that the potential sources had to be available through the Internet. Right now the article has no references, online or offline. — Rankiri (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that. Incidentally, one reason why the use of the internet in Japan is so high is the fact that most text messaging via phone is in fact via email. A high percentage of what's on the web is bloggery and mere chitchat. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Doesn't meet the following Notability criteria: there isn't significant coverage is more than a trivial mention (at least in English and German... maybe an editor from Japan could add sources in Japanese) and there're no secondary sources showing objective evidence of notability. I don't care if it is a nudity magazine or a science magazine, articles need sources. If an editor adds references about the magazine (not references about information published in the magazine) I would change my mind but until then I don't this article belongs here.--Karljoos (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just added some sources - including those secondary sources (in English) showing notability that other posters just can't find! Took me 5 minutes on Google. There should be no question of deleting this article, this is a well established (50+ years old) and well known magazine. It is obviously a stub and could use some more work but it is definitely a Keep. Wikipedia would be better served by editors who were more interested in doing a little research and adding to articles instead of dismissing or trying to cleanse things they dislike or don't understand. My rant for the day. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution. The sources in English that you added mention Shukan Jitsuwa, but none of them provides substantial information that helps to establish the notability of the subject.--Karljoos (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "instead of dismissing or trying to cleanse things they dislike" - Despite the text above you couldn't resist not assuming good faith or attacking me? EuroPride (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been no attack that I can discern, EuroPride. If you can discern one, then perhaps I am insufficiently sensitive to such slights; or, just possibly, you are overly sensitive. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Karljoos, at least one does not merely mention Shūkan Jitsuwa (I've no idea why it has lost one mora here) but instead clearly gives it as one of a small number of examples of magazines that may appear merely lubricious but that make a significant contribution to the (enfeebled) fourth estate in Japan. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Demonstrably a significant purveyor of T&A photos, verbal titillation, gossip, trivia, but also news to the male Japanese masses. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Hoary (for he says it so well). —Quasirandom (talk) 00:38, 17 April 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.