Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo Topless


 * 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 Without sources, we cannot accept the claims as factual. Yes, there may be some systemic bias against non-English sources, but this is an encyclopedia, one of our corner stones is verifiability.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo Topless

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable website, unreferenced for 3 years, claim to notability unsupported Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep According to a news report on the site, it's the most successful non-commercial site in Tokyo. The fact that this link has been removed the article because of WP External Link rules makes it no less reliable or notable. And if you enjoy zaftig Asian ladies as much as I do, and you're not at work, feel free to give it a look. You can thank me later: Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It says claims to be the first adult site in Asia, so it does claim notability... whether that's right or not, needs verification/sourcing... 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The site has been around for 15 years, an eternity for a porn site. It has a traffic ranking of about 5000 in Japan according to Alexa and some 13% of its audience in the US, pretty impressive numbers for a non-commercial site in a niche field and with little advertising. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 07:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - these assertions of notability would be stronger with verifiable citations to some reliable sources. The website just cannot be used as a source for these assertions about itself.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Hi, Kenny. To be honest, I have little faith that this one will be saved. I think it should be, and can be, but it's beyond my means. The site might not be a "reliable source" for its claim, but I can state from personal knowledge that it's been online since '95. Also, that it's a highly popular site. Also, that all the high-profile models and actresses mentioned (and removed) in the article have made appearances at the site. Also, that it's nearly impossible that the site has not received multiple coverage in the Japanese press-- either the very large near-mainstream tabloid-style publications, or in publications specializing in the big-bust genre. Again, I can't prove any of this, I can just state it from personal knowledge. I know that this satisfies nothing at an AfD, and I've been anticipating this AfD since I first saw the article started... The only thing near-passable I've found are the citation to the book I added to the article, the TV news video (which really ought to pass as secondary coverage, and a "reliable" claim of "notability", but is discounted on a technicality). There's also this column which mentions that it has received over a million hits: Other than that, I'm resigned to seeing the article deleted unless there is someone who has access to the articles there are bound to be on the site... A comparable English-language/US site would far easier to source & save, and I think this a good example of how applying "notability" criteria "evenly" to all subjects-- as if they were equally easy to source-- results in biased coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this is an issue that arises repeatedly with Japanese subjects, due to the fact that good Japanese sourcing is notoriously absent from the Internet. Naturally, it's an issue that is compounded with niche subjects. That editors who are aware of this, and the bias it creates, can blithely cite GNG without noting that it states right at the top of the page it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions" is cynical at best. Dekkappai (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Special pleading, I'm afraid. Occasional exceptions maybe but you're arguing for "repeated" exceptions for Japanese articles.  The internet is not the point.  Notability requires multiple reliable sources -- I'm old-fashioned enough to think they are more likely to be on paper!  This is the English-language Wikipedia, so naturally English-language sources are preferred and if not, translations are requested.  That seems sensible rather than cynical to me.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply you were being cynical above. You give indications of listening to reason, rather than giving a drive-by, two-word link to a guideline (three words, counting "Delete"). Of course I'm arguing for repeated exceptions for Japanese articles, because they are being subjected to criteria set up by English-speaking editors with an unintentional bias towards English-language sourcing. Of course there is Japanese print sourcing for these subjects. That's my point. It's out there, and it proves the subject is "notable" by WP standards, so how do we find it? English-language print-sourcing is by-and-large either available, or indexed online. Not so with Japanese. Even mainstream newspapers, when they do put their articles online, remove them and block them from archiving. Even Deletion-inclined editors who work in Japanese subject areas are aware of this. To sneer at this as "special pleading" I'm afraid indicates indifference to biased coverage in support of arbitrary guidelines. Dekkappai (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can always claim WP:IAR... on the basis of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and WP:BIAS. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, right at the top of GNG, it says "common sense" and "exception" are to be applied. I believe subjects in most non-English languages are placed at a disadvantage by interpreting GNG strictly. But frankly, even as a follower of this site since... 1997, I think... I would not have started the article unless I had solid claim of "notability", or plenty of secondary coverage. So, even though I think the site is actually "notable" I won't be surprised to see it deleted, due to this English-biased guideline... I won't be surprised if eventually such sourcing does come to light though, and would be happy to restart the article at that time... Maybe Jimbo could offer an all-expenses-paid scholarship to Tokyo to engage in the research ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of satisfying GNG. EuroPride (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment One would hope that the most successful non-commercial site in Tokyo, possibly the first adult site in Asia, online for 15 years, subject of an English-language news story, would at least receive a fair hearing, rather than be removed by a bland, bureaucratic adherence to procedure with no concern over the bias that creates. But then, to have that hope, one would have to not have become accustomed to the way "Delete" votes are tossed about by those who openly proclaim they are here to remove content from the "not censored" "sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - Could you please provide a link to show where either I or the other editor who voted 'delete' proclaimed that we are here to remove content? Unless of course you were being dishonest in an attempt to undermine any opposing opinions. Thanks in advance! EuroPride (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes I can, but it's off-topic, so I'll reply at your talkpage. Dekkappai (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion actually rather fruitfully illustrates the point The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. What Dekkappai says about this site may well be true, and indeed for the sake of argument I am happy to concede that it is.  But without reliable sources we do not know it to be true.  And without knowing it to be true, we can't include it.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and by following this to its logical conclusion, we have FAs on Simpsons episodes, while articles Academy Award-winning Japanese films should be deleted. Yes, I've started articles on such films, and the sourcing that I was able to find online is little better than it is at this one... Admittedly this particular article is not on a subject on a par with an Academy Award-winner, but can we recognize that following these (English-speaking) editor-created rules without taking into consideration the subject results in bias? I think it's a real issue that needs adressing, but I'm not a policy-minded enough editor to go into it... Dekkappai (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that the site meets the notability requirements of WP:WEB, or that it can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question The ("NSFW") video linked to above is rather amusing, I think unintentionally. I recommend it to (and only to) the tolerant. It also makes clear assertions of notability. I'd inexpertly guess that it comes from some British broadcasting [small "b"!] company, and that if its provenance could be clarified it could be a "RS" for certain claims. A rather desperate Channel 4 production, perhaps? Does anyone familiar with rather dodgy British television have any idea? (Perhaps the style of voice-overs gives it away, and with dribs and drabs of evidence one could identify the likely series, and thereafter the exact episode, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess would have been Japanorama, but I don't see TT listed as a subject there. HBO (I think) had a series in the '80s with an elderly, droll British chap exploring the randy side of various countries... some series like that, I suspect... What confuses me is that this little clip is being ignored... I guess because the site which hosts it is apparently in violation of copyright... big deal, it still proves it exists-- secondary coverage, with claims of notability... Dekkappai (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Recall that notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Can we say that this clip is from a "reliable source" (that is, one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy")? No, because we have no idea where it's from.  I'd say that it's clearly from a late-night porno filler programme, Japanorama rather than Panorama.  I note that the website is seen only in passing, so it's not "significant" either.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I'd reply, but then you'd quote "AGF" or some other such crap... I do hold out hope that Hoary will provide us with at least one reasonable "Delete" vote here... Dekkappai (talk)
 * It would be more amusing if when I voted keep DGG (where he?) voted delete. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the website is seen only in passing, but to infer from this that it plays an insignificant role in the video clip is laughable. &para; Certainly the video is not from Panorama. The subject is too silly to appear on Panorama, unless of course Panorama has proceeded a lot further toward idiocracy than I'd dared imagine. Nothing unusual here: huge swathes of Wikipedia are (perhaps rightly) devoted to different species of the arguably silly. &para; WP:N does indeed require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And rightly so, as a response to grand (if not mere bullshit) claims such as that a company "is a pure-play business intelligence solution provider that has revolutionized the way organizations make decisions through business intelligence". It is, however, blazingly obvious that Wikipedia does not require it. Just hit the "random article" link and you'll find plenty. But since "other crap exists" is of course no defense, let's consider not crap articles but a good one. "Ozy and Millie" is about a web comic -- "listed in the top 200 most read webcomic [sic] on The Webcomic List" -- briefly published by the very minor Plan Nine Publishing and later from the vanity outfit Lulu.com. So far, very minor notability indeed (as "notability" is normally defined); but "In 2002, the strip won the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards for 'Best Anthropomorphic Comic'. The strip also won the 2006 and 2007 Ursa Major Awards for 'Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip'", which I'll take to be major achievements. Sourcing? The article has 27 footnotes. Most are to issues of Ozy and Millie itself; those that are not are to comic fansites and so forth. Yet this isn't merely an acceptable article, it's a "Good" one. May Dekkappai (or any other knowledgable person) source the claims in this article to big-tit fansites and similar, or is there one rule within Wikipedia for (say) "furry fandom" and another for pr0n in general or "breast fetishism" in particular? -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No special rules are being applied to porn. Like Ozy and Millie, many porn-related articles have also survived AfD due to award wins rather than meeting GNG. However, Tokyo Topless has no reliable sourced claims of importance. Epbr123 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Ozy and Millie has won two kinds of awards. It's done particularly well at the "Ursa Major Awards", whose name intrigued me -- could there be an actual link to astronomy here? Actually no, it's instead about disneyfied furry animals, or so we learn in the WP article on it. Which is largely sourced to, um, the website of the Ursa Major Awards, though also to the "Furtean [sic] Times". &para; Well, Dekkappai, you and your chums are just going to have to set up an award for your area of interest, and then a walled garden of articles about and related to the award; you can then present the award to any person or institution you later want to write up in WP. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...seems only sensible. With so many editors making up the rules & guidelines around here, one little guy giving out his own awards couldn't hurt anyone... Dekkappai (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although announcing the conspiracy beforehand probably isn't the best way to ensure its effectiveness. &para; There is a huge amount of Japanese printed literature on pr0n. A lot of it is titillatory stuff that while purporting to examine pr0n from the outside actually more or less exemplifies its area of study (but I suppose there's nothing so exceptional here, as for example what are presented as studies of manga and commercial Japanese yoof culture often seem to be mixed up with "tributes" and the like). However, there are also sober sociological studies; I've occasionally noticed these in bookstores. I suppose you're going to have to order a few thousand yen's worth from amazon.co.jp, praying that they have indexes or are otherwise easy to use. If time permitted, I'd look in bookshops and note down titles of useful looking books -- but it won't permit. &para; It would be very helpful if the articles in ja:WP were referenced and thus one could learn where to look things up; but in general the referencing in ja:WP is feeble or non-existent (I think because the great majority of courses at Japanese universities demand no real library research, let alone formal description thereof). -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ, I've shot down the "notability" of Dekkappai's Grand Prix of Pocchari Pulchritude before I even started the thing... Yes, I'm always harping about the availability of such sourcing in Japan-- both "legit" & semi-... I saw it in Japan, and a little of it used to be available in Japanese bookstores here in the US. Some crusader seems to have cleaned them up though, and I'm not devoted enough to invest in JA-Amazon... I've got just a couple good books covering the subject in English, and I milk them for sourcing, of course... If Jimbo would offer a scholarship to do the fieldwork in Tokyo, I'd apply... Until then, we'll have to learn to live without an article on Tokyo Topless, I guess... Dekkappai (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, porn already has its share of walled gardens. ;) Epbr123 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pink film, classic walled garden... How can a genre in which nobodies like Yōjirō Takita, Masayuki Suo and the producer of Ikiru and Seven Samurai worked be of any significance? Maybe we should delete it all. Keep up the good work, Epbr123. Dekkappai (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interim comments Let's look at the nutshell of WP:WEB: Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. I do not think that the current article could be so interpreted. For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Notability and significance in its area have been claimed. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources. Here's the problem, and I'll concede that it is not a trivial one. &para; The general tone of WP:WEB suggests that it is a defense against (self-) promotion, and a promotional tone is lacking here. Now, even if I'm right so far (and others may well disagree), this doesn't mean that WP:WEB shouldn't apply. However, it is a guideline and I'd suggest discretion in applying it. In its current state, the article is not satisfactory, but it also seems innocuous. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 10 June 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.