Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Slave Ship (film)

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. ✗plicit 12:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Slave Ship (film)

The Slave Ship (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Pardon my failure of BEFORE, but I don't see anything in the article that even asserts notability, let alone prove it. The only source is the English DVD distributor, the director's name is a redlink, and it does not even have a Japanese wiki page (ja:奴隷船 (曖昧さ回避) dab page has it as a redlink. No such user (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The film stars "Kyōko Aizome, Japanese erotic actress, singer, writer, and AV and film director. She has been called "the first hard-core porn actress in Japan". It has an entry at AllMovie, another entry at FilmStarts, still another entry at MUBI and a detailed entry with photos at Alligatorgraphe. It also has an IMDb entry with 32 photos. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. I could find no reviews or sources discussing this film directly and in detail. @Roman Spinner, while Kyōko Aizome may be notable, notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, the five links (AllMovie, IMDb, etc) that I provided within my "Keep" vote are not focused upon delineating Kyōko Aizome's career, but primarily this film. As for notability is not inherited, the content of that essay on Wikipedia deletion policy contains this text, "That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman, AllMovies and IMDB are film databases, which means their scope is basically every film ever recorded, but it is not our mission. They are not even considered reliable sources (but are appropriate external links), so cannot establish notability. Alligatorgraphe is a personal blog. We need multiple independent reviews about this film and coverage of more than the plot. Even its IMDB entry is a dead end, with zero critics reviews and zero user reviews. No such user (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such user, I contend that any film with Kyōko Aizome, who is a celebrity in Japan, is by definition notable even if editors of Japanese Wikipedia had not gotten around to creating an entry for this film. The five websites above, including entry at FilmStarts and entry at MUBI obviously feel sufficiently strongly about it, having devoted time and space to the film. As for AllMovie, its reputation must be held in sufficient regard by The New York Times which includes on its website thousands of AllMovie film reviews. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unable to find significant coverage even when searching in Japanese. Only relevant hits are news about the then pending release, [1], [2]. – robertsky (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I appreciate the keep vote's effort, but we need to respectfully disagree (note: I added a neutral note at WikiProject Film asking for if more refs could be found, but will abstain from this discussion). Databases such as IMDb discouraged by WP:NFILM, more databases and trivial mentions does not show notability. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. Besides, IMDb is generally unreliable on WP:RSP. Note that its reputation must be held in sufficient regard by The New York Times which includes on its website thousands of AllMovie film reviews- yes but in this case AllMovie's coverage is a database with user reviews, which should be self-published and generally unreliable. Further, films get no inherited notability because of notable cast members. The response is an example of cherry picking, the essay states both [t]hat is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. If it refers to the additional inclusionary criteria per WP:NFILM, this meets none of these guidelines. Further, the essay also notes [t]he spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available. Besides, why is an essay cited to bypass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, which doesn't approve inherited notability if it doesn't meet the additional NFILM guidelines? As databases are insufficient to be considered as critical commentary, this fails SIGCOV. Otherwise, if database entries are SIGCOV almost every film listed on IMDb could have an article. Many thanks for everyone's time! VickKiang (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a film featuring Aizome is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion, there's no indication this porn movie is significant. Fulmard (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It should be noted that the Wikipedia entry for this 2010 feature does not describe it as a "porn movie", but as a mystery-pink film, which refers to "almost any Japanese theatrical film that includes nudity (hence 'pink') or deals with sexual content. This encompasses everything from dramas to action thrillers and exploitation film features". Also, while Kyōko Aizome was once associated with pornography, she retired from performing in such films as of 1994. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 October 2022 (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.