Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife Taxi: Crowded with Big Tits


 * 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) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wife Taxi: Crowded with Big Tits

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" "honorable mention" in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." I belive that means that it came in out of the top 10 in this fan poll. 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) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 July 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) 21:21, 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) 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yet another of the fucking horrible spam pages touting obscure Japanese porn spammed onto Wikipedia without oversight by User:Dekkappai. Kill them all. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Let's tone down the invective and allegations a bit and look at the facts instead. The film in question is an example of Japanese softcore pink film. This type of film has played an important part in Japanese film history and has been a factor in Japanese culture and politics. The reference that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz cites above is an article by pink film authority Jasper Sharp and gives a good overview of the role that pink film has played in Japanese culture and its growing popularity internationally. Read the article to get a better understanding of where this particular Wikipedia article and others of its kind come from. Sharp has also written a serious study of pink film Behind the Pink Curtain, 2008, (ISBN 978 1 903254 54 7) and although in the article mentioned above, Sharp does in passing call PG a "fanzine", he is more explicit in his book describing it as a (page 379): "Specialist Japanese magazine on pink films, edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida, established in July 1994." And about the magazine's PG website, which has been brought into question, he has this to say (page 380): "The website of the best magazine on the subject. An invaluable, comprehensive and up-to-date resource on pink movies edited by Yoshiyuki Hayashida." Thus, we have a reliable and authoritative source vouching for both PG magazine and the PG website. As for the Pink Grand Prix, Miho Toda in a series of articles    for a reliable source, calls them the Pink Film "Academy Awards" (アカデミー賞). As far as the film not being a first prize winner, if the awarding authorities from "the best magazine on the subject" choose to give awards to more than one candidate, we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, arbitrarily impose rules that only certain awards are "good enough". That would involve cultural bias, POV and OR to make such decisions. In summary, this is a film which has won a significant award given by a prominent magazine and is described in a reliable source. I know of no connection between PG magazine and the [sic] "porn-marketting machine in japan"; if there is one, a source would be welcomed. Incidentally, pink film has always been produced and distributed by the major film studios in Japan. And profanity, cultural bias, personal attacks and failure to observe "assume good faith" does not further what is supposed to be a rational discussion. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dubious notability with puff derived from fanzine reference source. English title appears to have been made up arbitrarily by the author to boot. --DAJF (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We don't delete articles on notable, significant films based on cultural and moral bias. Comments about "titties" and "porn" show the ignorance and bias going into some of the votes here. The Pink film is a hugely significant part of Japanese cinema, and has been for nearly 50 years. It is, basically, all Japanese independent cinema. To equate it with US/western "porn" is culturally biased and ignorant, and nominating this article based on that bias is tantamount to attempting to censor coverage of Japanese independent cinema. Read the Pink film article for details. Many significant figures in Japanese cinema have worked in this genre. Just one example: Yōjirō Takita, the winner of last year's U.S. Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film started in this genre, made a hugely significant contribution to the genre, and this work is a significant portion of his work. The Pink Grand Prix is currently the main award in the genre. Anglo pink film scholar Jasper Sharp, and mainstream Japanese sources have noted this in several writings cited in the article. All films awarded at this ceremony are notable simply due to this one award. To claim they are not is to make a laughing-stock of Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and encyclopedic coverage. Also, this film was directed by Yutaka Ikejima, written by Kyōko Godai-- a notable writer covered in two English-language books on the pink film-- and distributed by OP Eiga. Read the articles on that director and the studio for some background. Are we to censor this because of the belligerent ignorance of a few Anglo prudes? I strongly suggest that anyone who purports to be interested in creating an encyclopedia which includes Japanese cinema as a subject area, review their !votes. Because I can tell you, your Delete vote is WRONG here. Pink films just like this one, are covered more and more by mainstream English-language texts on Japanese cinema. This is nothing less than an effort to censor an entire genre of Japanese cinema based on the cultural and moral bias of a few Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per comprehensive rationale of Cherryblossom1982, and strongly warn Carrite about personal attacks-comment on the article, not the editor.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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) 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per reasoned comments above. Notability in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia.  A slightly WP:WAX sidebar: There are certain revered religious carvings on temples in India that would make many folks in the States blush.  Are we to then use Wstern bias and judge such as "porn" and act to denigrate or declare such as unnotable? Hardly.  I accept that Western 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. 07:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - That the P*G website is reliable has been established above to my comfort, as is that the award is notable in the genre. By any reasonable measure of notability, that signals it's notable to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Pink film is notable, many specific pink films are notable, I accept the award as apparently notable, and I appreciate that there are articles on them. I'd like to see more thorough coverage of pornography on Wikipedia.  This specific film is not WP-notable, however.  The film is lacking the sort of significant coverage from Reliable sources and consequent verifiability 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 if there are RS for things other than the mere fact of winning the award.  It's the existence of RS treating the film as the subject at length that is the measure of WP-notability.  This film could be better treated in a list of films that won the award, if that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:16, 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) 19:24, 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) 20:10, 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) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrectly interpreting WP:NOTFILM. Your claim that all films must ALSO pass GNG makes WP:NOTFILM entirely useless. Actually, the award, and the other ways that the film pass NOTFILM are proof that the film is notable. Reliable sources do exist but 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-- not to create a redundant check-- "OK, we got all the sources we need to write a Feature Article, now let's see if it passes WP:NOTFILM." No. 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) 23:16, 2 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.") Yutaka Ikejima, the film's director, and Kyōko Godai, the film's writer are highly notable filmmakers in the pink film genre. Actress Lemon Hanazawa is a multiple award-winner. 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) 23:12, 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) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep What right do we have to declare an award in a notable Japanese award ceremony as unimportant? There are over 20 Oscar category awards and even getting nominated for just one estabilishes a certain notabililty. So how would we as non experts tell that a place 8 award in Japan lacks relevance? At least I have not seen any prove for this here. I am also impressed of the deep knowledge that Dekkappai and Cherryblossom1982 have in that field, so there is nothing to add to their comphrehensive explanations which even for an (open) western eye should make the inclusion of this article plausible. Both main editors are hardworking experts and would be loss for Wikipedia when stopping their contributions. Furthermore the nominator lacks obviously and without any doubt WP:NPOV in this area which even goes to name-calling of involved editors. Testales (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he discuss this film? If not, hardly seems relevant.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That the expert was interviewd by a news organization in regards the magazine he founded does seem to be paricularly relevent... in showing suitable expertise and credibility for the magazine he founded... a magazine that DOES cover this film. Or is the fact that this is all in Japanese that you find irrelevent to en.Wikipedia?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep according to my detailed argument above for "Older Officer Lady 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)
 * 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) 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's been mentioned that besides being named among the Top Ten, the film also has a performance which won a Best Acting award: Kōji Makimura. Dekkappai (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, and fails WP:NOTFILM as the film itself hasn't won an award. The argument that the film passes WP:NOTFILM due to being "widely distributed by a major film studio in a country that is not a major film producing country" is Wikilawyering, applying the letter of the guideline rather than its spirit. The guideline clearly doesn't intend to mean that every film distributed by a major Japanese porn studio is notable. Epbr123 (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Epbr, I am honestly trying to restrain what would be considered "personal attack" here, but you are being dishonest in your arguments to Delete these films. There is simply no other way to put it. You support the "Award" criteria at PORNBIO, and you create countless stubs (Eric Swiss, Aletta Ocean, Anthony Crane, Eric Masterson (pornographic actor), etc.) on truly hardcore subjects which are propped up with awards like "Best Anal Scene", and no significant sourcing. Yet you vote to delete films in a softcore genre which has produced some very highly-regarded, well-made films. Again: These films easily pass WP:NOTFILM on several points. They have all been awarded-- note the people accepting awards on stage at the Pink Grand Prix in the secondary sourcing on the awards -- as among the top ten releases in their genre for the year. The Pink Grand Prix is a notable award and is the major award in the genre, as shown by reliable sourcing, in both English and Japanese, both at the article and in these discussions. This film has notable personnel (Yutaka Ikejima and Lemon Hanazawa) and a notable studio (OP Eiga) behind it. As an award winner it is a significant part of their career, but details on the film's release would be inappropriate in those articles. Hence a stand-alone article is needed. Dekkappai (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently people are not looking at the Pink Grand Prix article and are therefore claiming the award is sourced only on primary sourcing. This is not true, and further secondary sourcing is easily found. For the 2004 award ceremony, which names this film as having been awarded, see: . Dekkappai (talk) 13:06, 7 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) 18:24, 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) 19:22, 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) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it just pure coincidence or well calculated timing that you throw in a new big comment now where the AfDs get closed and the first one even already has been closed as with "no consensus"? Some of your points may indeed have contributed to the discussion here while others appear to be rather questionable. So for example you claim that the analogy of the Grand Prix Award to the Academy Awards is not adequate right after you have compared the size of the theater where the ceremony is hold to the circulation of a news paper. So how big has the ceremony place to be to establish notability? Anyway, a no-consensus is what it finally looks like indeed. Furthermore I wonder if it really serves the idea of Wikipedia to create verbose deletion discussions about actually harmless articles which exceed the articles' possible maximum size by far. Testales (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, 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. 01:25, 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? Dekkappai (talk) 05:27, 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. 15:17, 8 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.