Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenga (masturbation toy)


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tenga (masturbation toy)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

1. no indep. ref. 2. no indication of notability 3. after several years 4. Advert Widefox (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is crap and for years its "external links" area in particular has been a battleground among agents and vendors (actual or purported) of the product; I think you'll find that the spam blacklist contains at least one of these websites. However, even as it is, the article does have one indicator of notability: it mentions a book on the subject, which verifiably exists and has even got mixed reviews in its page (SFW) of the Japanese branch of a certain book monopolist. (It comes from what WP surprisingly calls "a major publisher": major in terms of sales rather than contribution to intellectual life, I think.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable spam magnet; will be blocking one of the editors involved. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently it really isn't an article. There were some edits in the past that were neutral but the article never gain much momentum as it is constantly being vandalized. This article needs a major reset--PrinnyGod (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A real, notable, and innovative brand in Japan, as evidenced by http://www.amazon.co.jp/x/dp/4812439051/ . Note that Beat Takeshi contributed to the book. Shii (tock) 04:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Kill the rats but don't nuke the house. No straight delete, but probably page protection to keep vandalism at bay. Keep(speedy?) and merge with a broader article (masturbation? sex toy?), at least it's one, not two vandalism targets then. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Product list of a non-notable company. Whether the company is "real" or "innovative" is irrelevant, the question is whether they are "notable" — meaning the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. And this answer, it would seem, is no. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect, or merge, not notable enough for its own article.


 * Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability for a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was easily able to find over one hundred (100) secondary sources, just adjust search for "tenga" and "masturbation". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have some solid sources that adequately demonstrate notability, then please add them to the article. Note that retail sites and references that simply mention the product in passing do not really count for anything. --DAJF (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but possibly remove the list of products. The company as a whole is notable. Removing spam magnets is not a reason for deletion: better to remove the spam and the spammers. A widely distributed product is notable, by common sense if necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I just looked this object up after I saw a reference to it and was glad to find an entry here.  I suspected what it was, but I needed a SFW source. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:50, 22 March 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.