Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanking Love (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Shimeru (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking Love

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Spanking Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1995 Japanese Erotic film. Does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG (at time of nomination) Stillwaterising (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the new version of the article. Glad to see it improved. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He explained that it might be "savable". Unfortunately no-one seems to have saved it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salvable? Let's change that to "further improvable". With respects, that no one jumped to improve is not a valid reason for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is for re-release after 5 years -- this is clearly about the film being released cinematically (hence the comment about festivals). This was released to video, quite a different thing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly"? Sorry , let's not POV or OR these arguments. No where does it state that a "commercial re-release" for monetary gain refers only to theaters or festivals... or is your assertion meant to intend that any films ever released on video could never be found notable through a commercial video release. Yikes. However, this side-discussion has been rendered moot due to the terrific work by others in improving the article now that the AFD forced cleanup.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, not an article. So let's not have the acronym soup. I didn't state any of those things, so no need to argue against them. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and apoplogies. My impressions toward of your interpretation of guideline are simply my own. I have struck the offending acronym soup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Involving a notable person is not enough. Notability is not inherited. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect You're misreading WP:NOTINHERITED. What you may have missed in WP:NF is it specifically allowing consideration of a film's notability if it features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. A feature film debut of a notable qualifies. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His "career" was being a cannibal, as least, that's what he's notable/notorious for. This film was not a significant part of that! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, he's not a professional cannibal. He capitalized on that crime to launch into some sort of cult celebrity. Film appearances were a major part of that-- though, according to the Weisser book anyway, it is the Satō film that gave his career the boost. In any case, this particular film is notable without reference to Sagawa. Major studios, and coverage by independent, reliable sources. Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Released by a major studio, satisfies GNG with a full discussion/description in Kinema Junpo[1], and an entry in the Weisser Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia (a rule of thumb: If a subject has an entry in a paper encyclopedia, why should it be excluded from an online one purporting to aspire to "the sum of human knowledge"?). Personally I think the Issei Sagawa angle is over-emphasized. He seems to have just had a bit-part in this film, and it is perfectly "notable" without reference to him... Dekkappai (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Article has undergone major improvement since forced to by this AFD!!! What began as this, is now THIS. Major kudos to Kudos to Dekkappai. Awesome job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its mentioned in a published encyclopedia, and various notable entries found elsewhere, as mentioned by those above. Clearly notable. Dream Focus 08:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see the significant improvements have been made in sourcing. Good work. One of the purposes of Afd's is to force users to "improve it or remove it." - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I prefer the carrot and not the stick, is that a withdrawal? :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
    • I'd always heard that AfD was for judging the subject's suitability for an article, not the state of the article itself. Though, as these AfDs are actually practiced, you are probably right. I think this is bad because a decent, sourced stub can always be improved by someone who has the knowledge/access to sourcing to do so. Removing the article prevents any future improvement. Anyway, glad to have chipped in on this article, and thanks to Michael too, who is being modest about his own contributions to the improvement of this article. And, I suspect, a native Japanese speaker with interest and access to appropriate sourcing, could expand this article much more. Dekkappai (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that there's no longer any delete votes I would like to ask that this Afd be withdrawn, unless there's any objections. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources seem reliable to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are too trivial. The film doesn't seem to have had much coverage outside database and retail sites. Epbr123 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Right. Only a full page at Kinema Junpo,[2], rare for this type of film, and a listing in the Weisser Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia. (There have been hundreds of such films released every year for the past 50 years in Japan, only a relative few could be listed in the Weisser work.)... Dekkappai (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia coverage is just a three-sentence plot summary, which makes it trivial per WP:NF. The film hasn't received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Epbr123 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The film was released by Daiei, one of the oldest and largest studios in Japan. That it would be covered in sources is highly likely. Without doing much searching I've found an entry on the film in an actual encyclopedia on Japanese film, in English no less. Out of a hundred or more such films released that year, this one was given an entry-- your judgment of that entry is irrelevant. I also found a full description of it at Kinema Junpo. Unless you have access to a wide variety of Japanese sourcing-- which is notoriously lacking on the Internet-- then your assertion that the film has not received more coverage is pure groundless conjecture. Epbr123, you appear to be here only to draw out this AfD beyond the point at which the nominator requested its withdrawal. You appear to be here only to waste the community's time. This is practically the definition of trolling. I suggest you do the right thing. Dekkappai (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides the lack of substance in the recent Delete !vote, it came after the nominator requested withdrawal of this AfD. Can it be disqualified? The Delete vote is free to re-nominate, ad-infinitum, of course. But, this particular one should have been closed, as requested and agreed upon by consensus. It hurts nothing to let the AfD ride out to its obvious conclusion, of course, but it is a waste of community time. Dekkappai (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per MichaelQSchmidt and Dekkappai. Tabercil (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spanking_Love_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1080262533"