Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet Set Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Peacent 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wet Set Magazine

Wet Set Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable fetish magazine. No reliable sources to verify any notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Æthelwold 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Dripping with notability problems. I'm not saying it's gotta go, just that some more sources would relieve this discussion to purge the article. ~ Infrangible 02:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response I feel the urge to expel some of the material, and the article could certainly use some urination. But seriously though, I think that while the magazinine may or may not be notable, it at least merits a merge to Omorashi, as it isa very good example of omorashi being present in a context outside of Japan, and indeed well into the Western world. Calgary 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to disagree with the nominator here with regards to reliable sources for this magazine. Isn't this webpage a source of reliable source? Moreover, google shows up quite a number of hits for this magazine. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I oppose this deletion because the reason it was proposed notability. Wet Set is certainly notable; it is the only really notable example of omorashi subculture outside of Japan. As Siva1979 also pointed out, this magazine has recieved a lot of attention in the Australian Adult Entertainment Industry. Not only was the Magazine nominated for best in its category in 2004, their Website also recieved a nomination.[1] Calgary's suggestion of a merge with omorashi would be a good one (I had actually considered it myself orginally since I created both pages) if not for the issue of length. The omorashi article is already rather long, and it would be difficult to put all the information on Wet Set's history of over a decade (not to mention the stuff on their other publications) into subsection after subsection under the "Outside of Japan" heading. For this reason I must stand by my orginal position that Wet Set needs its own page. Fsecret 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The above comments contain links to sources of this magazine being nominated for an award, which show that this magazine has received acclaim and is considered notable. The nominator's argument is lack of reliable sources and this has been proved wrong. Coop41 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was fine with the article from the outset, though I toned down the caption on the 2nd picture, it was a tad... exuberant. And now that there's an award nomination in the mix, well...! Snarfies 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fsecret and Coop41. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  22:03, 18 July 2007 (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.