652:. I get the impression that she's a sort of living female clotheshorse, the clothes here tending heavily toward lingerie and bikinis. Nothing wrong with any of that. (Indeed, she's one cog in a machine that's worthy of study: How is it that in Japan -- where photographs leaving almost nothing of the the female body to the imagination can legally be published and published, prodigiously -- there's such a huge and I think exclusively hetero male market for chaste cheesecake? But that's hardly an encyclopedic concern.) But I don't discern any achievement, aside (I presume) from an avoidance of skin blemishes and the ability to hold a smile for a long time without it coming to look too fake. Still, if such young ladies as
490:. I don't suppose there's much to say about any of these people beyond what's put out by their PR agencies, and I don't suppose much of it is true. What can one say about them, beyond "Here is the set of factoids that's said to represent her, and she has appeared in this set of forgettable books and that set of forgettable DVDs"? (Or are some of these books and DVDs noteworthy in some way?) --
327:. Not only does this article have no independent reliable sources, just links to her talent agency, the Japanese Knowledge (XXG) article doesn't even seem to have any links to independent reliable sources -- just the same link to her profile page at the talent agency linked from the English article. --
587:
Yes, what can one say about books or DVDs such as these? I'm not knocking
Japanese cheesecake, but I don't recall reading anything about it. Can you point to a worthwhile description or summary of Japanese cheesecake DVDs or books within any WP article? Is there any reason to believe the biographical
419:
working from good print sources-- magazines, newspapers, etc.-- so rarely cites its sources. Anyway, Nihonjoe has found good
Internet sourcing and improved the article beyond any notability concerns. And "No foreign-language sourcing for foreign topics," is an argument for, "If I don't know about it,
227:
larger over there, the article is subject to either incessant editwarring or vandalism, because it is protected from editing, the talk page is active (and notably the first post on it is one of the en.wikipedia article versions' editors asking for help from people there to improve the article here).
613:
I try to remove the blood type from articles when I see it as I don't think it's really relevant to an encyclopedic article (at least a general one like you'd find here). As I indicated above, I've expanded the article a bit and expanded the detail on what was there. I should note that until seeing
414:
It would be nearly impossible for a performer to appear in as much high-profile media as this subject and not have sourcing out there. The fact that we
English-speaking editors outside of Japan find it quite difficult to access those sources in no way affects that notability, it means those sources
459:
as she's been the main subject (meaning her name has been in the title) of at least 7 of the at least 27 DVD/video releases featuring her, and had eight photo books released (based on the information in the
Japanese article and content on Amazon Japan). That's definitely notable by any definition
379:
The point was, she's obviously a notable celebrity and the article was not properly sourced or written. Keep the article so that it could be improved. Movements to delete articles on
Japanese celebrities on the English Knowledge (XXG) usually rely on the difficulty for English-speaking editors to
573:
Yes, and only one or two of her appearances in film or TV are even mentioned in the article. I'm not saying she's notable because of her acting career. It's her modeling career that makes her notable, and she has a large number of published (by large publishers) photobooks to back it up, not to
306:
have lots of more pressing things to do than write up girls in bikinis, y'know. There's anime, and manga, and more anime, and more manga, and games, and ninja, and more games, and stations, stations, always more stations. Where shall I start translating? Let's take one of the items: WPB-net DVD
618:
published material out there and not be notable. She's been published many times through multiple very large publishers (Kodansha, Shueisha, Futabasha, and so on). I don't see how you can seriously argue she's not notable with such a mountain of evidence in support of notability.
574:
mention the videos and DVDs. The dime-dozen models don't have such a large number of them in general. I've expanded the works section to include ISBNs where I could find them. I've also expanded the bio details a bit (with info from the JA article as well as other sources). ···
415:
have to be found. That's why I voted to keep the article until it could be properly sourced and expanded. I believe the article should have been tagged for proper sourcing, not for deletion. It is frustrating to me that
Japanese Knowledge (XXG), edited by people who are
240:, and desperately needs copyediting and an article lead that tells us something meaningful. This is a clean-up, not a throw-away. PS: Credit where due: User:Caknuck noticed the problems with this nomination before I did, though oddly he hasn't commented here. —
487:
524:
I say she's notable based on having at least 7 video releases (in whatever format) where she's the main feature (or only feature) in that release. On top of that, she's had at least 8 photo books released, and that alone makes her notable as the
405:. Having no sources in English is also problematic because the information in the article is supposed to be verifiable by any user of English Knowledge (XXG). Japanese language sources should be used on Japanese Knowledge (XXG).
183:
Over 18000 hits for "Kasumi Nakane -wikipedia", none of which even remotely give a job description. Nearest I can come up with is she's a
Japanese pin-up girl. Article is borderline speedy IMO. --
630:
She certainly gets lots of Google hits. And she's been in a lot of books. So I suppose she's more notable than most of the alternatives, though it seems a negligible notability to me. --
429:
It's get sources, then make the article. The foreign language thing isn't an "I don't know it" argument, it's a "people who don't speak
Japanese cannot verify the article" argument.
110:
380:
find good sourcing of these subjects. Since
Nihonjoe has provided a wealth of reliable secondary sources, and has substantially improved the article, I move my
263:
What is there to say that's meaningful? She's one of zillions of more-than-averagely curvacious
Japanese girls who are photographed in bikinis. I'm whelmed. --
544:
We're not IMDB. We don't just make dossiers of the works people have appeared in. Can you provide any sources with which we can write this article? That's why
52:
472:
367:"Poorly written" is not the argument being presented for deletion. The reason for deletion is lack of reliable secondary sources independent of the topic.
601:
529:
of at least 15 published works. All of the works are easily verified, and published by major publishers. She may not be as well known as someone like
499:
You say she's notable; can you add some references to the article that take note of her? Interviews, profiles, articles? Who has taken note of her? -
397:
No one is notable until sources are provided. "Sources are out there" is not a sound argument, because that will not allow the article to comply with
117:
Unreferenced article on a living person; I suspect it's an ad since the only link is her talent agency. Someone de-prodded without comment and added
563:
514:
142:
49:
358:
Multiple TV, film, video, DVD, radio, book appearances... A poorly-written article is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to re-write.
156:, very much not a notable person at all. Google turns up nothing reliable -- in fact, the 2nd hit is this very Knowledge (XXG) page.
17:
600:, about as famous as they come now, has a couple of lists of "works", a list of biographical factoids (of course including a nod to
83:
78:
87:
121:
70:
416:
195:
Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be the most significant source of info for a bio, or they are not very notable to begin with.
675:
36:
674:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
559:
510:
138:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
229:
278:
660:
634:
625:
608:
580:
568:
539:
519:
494:
466:
441:
424:
409:
392:
371:
362:
343:
331:
315:
297:
267:
251:
199:
187:
175:
163:
147:
614:
this AfD, I'd never heard of her, but I now believe her to be notable. It's impossible to have that much
597:
653:
549:
500:
340:
328:
157:
128:
483:
74:
303:
290:
208:
261:
This ... desperately needs copyediting and an article lead that tells us something meaningful.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
237:
243:
398:
479:
421:
389:
359:
545:
434:
430:
402:
215:
doesn't mean the subject is auto-nonnotable, especially if they are stars outside the
620:
575:
534:
461:
438:
406:
368:
196:
184:
172:
66:
58:
289:
modelling. Subject also appears to do some voice-over work. We should refer this to
294:
286:
223:
to look at her ja.wikipedia article? The list of movie roles and publications is
104:
604:), and a generic write-up that could apply to any of hundreds of these girls. --
216:
228:
This should be tagged for cleanup and improved, not trashed just because it is
657:
631:
605:
491:
312:
281:) contains more claims to notability, including that the subject is a notable
264:
285:
celebrity, with several acting and singing credits to her name on top of her
589:
530:
433:
says that any user needs to be able to verify content as well as stating a
302:
The ja: article is basically just a set of lists. Thrilling! We people at
420:
it's not worth knowing." No point in arguing with something like that...
548:
exists; if there's nothing verifiable to say, we should say nothing. -
282:
307:
LIBRALY digital プレイボーイVol.2 仲根かすみ would be in English something like
668:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
588:"facts" of people like this? And what else is left? The
309:
WPB-net DVD library digital Playboy Vol.2 Kasumi Nakane.
293:
for expansion/rewriting/translation of the ja: article.
533:(to people in Japan), but she's definitely notable. ···
171:
No reliable secondary sources to establish notability.
100:
96:
92:
127:, but she doesn't actually appear on that template. -
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
678:). No further edits should be made to this page.
596:, merely that it was made and is now expensive;
339:. Thanks to Nihonjoe for providing sources. --
8:
592:article you point to says nothing about her
656:get articles, perhaps this one can too. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
209:you can't find much in the way of
207:: Do some homework. Just because
24:
486:. Her fans haven't updated her
437:for English language sources.
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
695:
53:10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
661:06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
635:06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
626:11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
609:08:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
581:11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
569:08:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
540:08:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
520:07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
495:07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
480:topographical association
467:07:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
442:19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
425:18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
410:18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
393:17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
372:01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
363:23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
344:05:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
332:17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
316:14:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
298:14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
268:13:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
252:10:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
200:02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
188:01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
176:01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
164:01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
148:01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
671:Please do not modify it.
546:the notability guideline
32:Please do not modify it.
122:Japanese Erotic Cinema
48:, defaulting to keep.
478:. For her delightful
277:Japanese WP article (
257:Answer and question
232:and hard to source
219:. Did anyone even
213:sources via Google
567:
518:
259:. Yes, I looked.
146:
686:
673:
623:
578:
557:
555:
537:
508:
506:
464:
275:Keep and rewrite
246:
211:English-language
160:
159:Ten Pound Hammer
136:
134:
126:
120:
108:
90:
34:
694:
693:
689:
688:
687:
685:
684:
683:
682:
676:deletion review
669:
621:
576:
551:
535:
502:
482:, I clicked on
462:
242:
158:
130:
124:
118:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
692:
690:
681:
680:
664:
663:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
616:professionally
602:this stupidity
598:Yoko Matsugane
585:
584:
583:
497:
476:are 百円 a dozen
474:gurabia aidoru
460:used here. ···
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
348:
347:
346:
341:Metropolitan90
329:Metropolitan90
320:
319:
318:
272:
271:
270:
202:
190:
178:
166:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
691:
679:
677:
672:
666:
665:
662:
659:
655:
651:
648:
636:
633:
629:
628:
627:
624:
617:
612:
611:
610:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
586:
582:
579:
572:
571:
570:
565:
561:
556:
554:
547:
543:
542:
541:
538:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
516:
512:
507:
505:
498:
496:
493:
489:
488:list of books
485:
481:
477:
475:
470:
469:
468:
465:
458:
455:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
423:
418:
413:
412:
411:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
378:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
365:
364:
361:
357:
354:
353:
349:
345:
342:
338:
335:
334:
333:
330:
326:
325:
321:
317:
314:
310:
305:
301:
300:
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
269:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
253:
250:
247:
245:
239:
235:
231:
226:
222:
218:
214:
212:
206:
203:
201:
198:
194:
191:
189:
186:
182:
181:Strong delete
179:
177:
174:
170:
167:
165:
161:
155:
154:Strong delete
152:
151:
150:
149:
144:
140:
135:
133:
123:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:Kasumi Nakane
64:
63:
60:
59:Kasumi Nakane
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
670:
667:
649:
615:
593:
552:
526:
503:
473:
456:
385:
381:
376:
355:
351:
350:
336:
323:
322:
308:
287:gravure idol
274:
260:
256:
248:
241:
233:
224:
220:
210:
204:
192:
180:
168:
153:
131:
116:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
457:Strong Keep
386:Strong Keep
356:Strong Keep
244:SMcCandlish
217:Anglosphere
435:preference
417:presumably
234:in English
230:unfamiliar
590:Agnes Lum
550:A Man In
531:Agnes Lum
501:A Man In
471:But Joe,
422:Dekkappai
390:Dekkappai
360:Dekkappai
311:Wild! --
129:A Man In
654:this one
564:past ops
560:conspire
515:past ops
511:conspire
484:this one
439:Jay32183
407:Jay32183
369:Jay32183
304:WP:JAPAN
291:WP:JAPAN
279:ja:仲根かすみ
238:stubbish
197:Pharmboy
185:Sethacus
173:Jay32183
143:past ops
139:conspire
111:View log
650:Neutral
594:gurabia
527:subject
377:Comment
337:Neutral
295:Caknuck
283:tarento
249:‹(-¿-)›
236:, very
84:protect
79:history
399:WP:NOR
324:Delete
221:bother
193:Delete
169:Delete
88:delete
658:Hoary
632:Hoary
606:Hoary
553:Bl♟ck
504:Bl♟ck
492:Hoary
313:Hoary
265:Hoary
132:Bl♟ck
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
431:WP:V
403:WP:V
401:and
382:Keep
352:Keep
225:much
205:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
622:日本穣
619:···
577:日本穣
536:日本穣
463:日本穣
384:to
162:•
109:– (
562:|
513:|
388:.
141:|
125:}}
119:{{
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
566:)
558:(
517:)
509:(
145:)
137:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.