580:
made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article.
438:, specifically the criteria for porn stars, is culturally biased. It's based on three basic criteria: 1) awards won or nominated, 2) notable contribution like starting a trend, 3) and appearances in mainstream media. Unless there's no industry awards in the Japanese porn industry, I don't see how these criteria are culturally biased. Another point that I would like to make is that a lot of articles are made on porn stars that are simply not notable, and a quick look at
616:... Delete 'em all!" No, we aren't. But should AfDs on these articles start up, you can expect to see very similar arguments coming from me. And I'm sure you've taken a similar argument with China-related AfDs-- in fact I'm sure I've seen you almost parrot my exact words at some. (No, don't ask me to dig through old times... Deny it if you want.) It seems that it is the
434:- Editing mostly Chinese-related articles and in many cases having relied on sources that are in the Chinese language, I'm not insensitive to cultural bias on WP, and have helped save and translate articles in the past that would have appeared not notable if we relied only on English-language sources. Having said that, I'm entirely unconvinced that
238:. There were some convincing arguments for this to be kept in the last AfD, and we should observe that being notable in Japan is somewhat different from being notable in the US or Europe. It really needs citations to reliable sources though. There may be such citations in Japanese, but maybe not - I'm certainly not qualified to judge that!--
523:
to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at
Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to
504:
anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at
Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to
499:
Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated
395:
Except, I am not using Amazon to establish notability of the article. Her 26 mainstream DVDs establish notability; and the fact that DVDs of her genre are so widely available in Japan (including Amazon, and any number of other vendors) points out that they are, in fact, mainstream; and not relegated
352:
the
English language wikipedia, it is not necessarily the US-culture-and-morals-centric wikipedia. What may be mainstream in one country is not necessarily the same in another. Amazon, with a global reputation to uphold, would seem to be a good barometer of what is accepted/popular in each country.
325:
I've given my statements about the cultural bias already present in the imbalance between U.S. and
Japanese subjects, and my feeling that using biased rules to further that imbalance is a disservice to Knowledge (XXG). To those statements, I add that Ms. Goto is a very well-known and popular actress
579:
is culturally biased against
Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's
522:
I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried
351:
This is most obviously apparent when you look at the availability of Goto's works at Amazon.co.jp, where she currently has 26 DVDs listed, and it looks like roughly half even feature her name in the title. Those same types of videos may not be classified as mainstream in the US, but, while this is
284:
that I might been more effective than I'd feared, I was eager to wash the odor of wholesomeness out of my hair and thus moved along the list of Japan-related AfDs to an article on this person, who seems more attractive and is certainly more cushioned. My careful researches so far, of course carried
605:
significant Korean films made in the decades before the current boom in popularity. How do I know they are significant? Because I lived in the country, and am naturally curious and studious about such topics. I asked around. I talked with friends and acquaintances about Korean cinema. I watched
531:
is any stricter when being applied to
Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and
560:
in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the
Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Knowledge (XXG),
561:
understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the
Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias.
473:
Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field,
600:
I thank you for the compliment, Hong, but I think your compliment points out the bias. The efforts in film-related articles you applaud, I assume, are in the area of Korean cinema. I am in the process of starting articles on
396:
to the back-alley shops like in the US. Trying to claim that she needs to have won awards, or be unique within the
Japanese porn or AV industries, is ignoring the fact that she has been featured in many mainstream medias.
105:
377:, making any conclusions about the notability of the product that they sell based on Amazon's sale practices is blatant synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position that goes against
479:
322:
289:
ghit in addition to all the dross. No comment (yet) on her articleworthiness, a matter on which I don't think I'm (yet) qualified to judge. But a couple of notes: (i) She has an article in bat-smg:WP (
100:
95:
89:
606:
Korean TV and looked through books on the local cinema. And now that I'm starting these articles, I find that sourcing on Korean films before the 1990s-- here, in the U.S., in
English-- is
610:
scarce. But are we standing around looking off in the horizon saying, "Nope, no sourcing for Korean film before 2001... Must not have been a single notable film made in Korea before
160:
281:
171:. What are her awards? Have her contributions been unique to Japanese porn besides being a girl with really big breasts? Is she featured in mainstream Japanese media?
214:
439:
191:
83:
478:
for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the scholarly sources I've cited at
527:
particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe
285:
out purely for encyclopedic and altruistic ends, lead me to suggest that she's often romanized as "Syoko Goto"; this might bring the occasional
246:
188:
17:
442:
shows that the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted in the past, at least judging by their names, are
590:
542:
460:
23:
133:
128:
629:
595:
570:
547:
514:
491:
465:
426:
405:
390:
361:
335:
314:
268:
251:
229:
203:
180:
66:
137:
656:
43:
293:); what language is this? (Baltic, perhaps, but what?) (ii) Particularly in view of en:WP's general discouragement of
120:
62:
575:
Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on
655:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
556:
here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles
422:
386:
240:
199:
176:
418:
586:
538:
456:
124:
294:
625:
566:
510:
487:
382:
331:
195:
172:
370:
326:
within the genre. I've added evidence of that to the article, and will do more later when I can.
116:
72:
264:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
576:
528:
447:
435:
344:
168:
581:
533:
451:
401:
357:
310:
378:
374:
621:
562:
506:
483:
327:
290:
277:
225:
475:
260:
154:
397:
353:
306:
57:
450:
has been just as strict, if not stricter, regarding American porn stars.
221:
505:
see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous.
612:
480:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination)
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (2nd nomination)
649:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
369:
Not only is relying on Amazon (or any vendor) improper due to
500:
Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of
276:
Having rather reluctantly done something to preserve the
620:
on which we differ, not the truth behind the argument.
150:
146:
142:
349:
Has been featured multiple times in mainstream media.
106:
Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (second nomination)
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
101:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (4th nomination)
96:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (3rd nomination)
90:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (2nd nomination)
659:). No further edits should be made to this page.
440:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion
8:
446:porn stars. Which only goes to show that
297:, must external links really be noted as "
215:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
303:(contains photographs of uncovered tits)
213:: This debate has been included in the
187:Note: This debate has been added to the
482:show that they actually have far more.
81:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
552:The overwhelming number of articles
79:
31:
84:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto
1:
280:article and then getting the
630:22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
596:21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
571:20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
548:20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
515:19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
492:17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
466:03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
67:04:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
532:hardly a reliable source.
427:00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
406:22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
391:11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
362:11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
336:00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
315:05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
269:16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
252:03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
230:01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
204:17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
181:17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
676:
167:Notability flunks current
299:(contains adult material)
259:No significant coverage.
652:Please do not modify it.
39:Please do not modify it.
189:WikiProject Pornography
347:as an entertainer who
301:"? How about instead "
78:AfDs for this article:
291:bat-smg:Shoko_Goto
594:
546:
464:
232:
218:
192:list of deletions
22:(Redirected from
667:
654:
584:
536:
454:
219:
209:
206:
158:
140:
55:(default keep).
41:
27:
675:
674:
670:
669:
668:
666:
665:
664:
663:
657:deletion review
650:
250:
247:r e s e a r c h
186:
131:
115:
112:
110:
92:
76:
65:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
673:
671:
662:
661:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
429:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
338:
317:
278:Kent Derricott
271:
254:
244:
233:
207:
165:
164:
111:
109:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
86:
80:
77:
75:
70:
61:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
672:
660:
658:
653:
647:
646:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
609:
604:
599:
598:
597:
592:
588:
583:
578:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
544:
540:
535:
530:
526:
521:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
503:
498:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
472:
469:
468:
467:
462:
458:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
407:
403:
399:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
350:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
324:
321:
318:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:peacock terms
292:
288:
283:
279:
275:
272:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
253:
249:
248:
243:
242:
237:
234:
231:
227:
223:
216:
212:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
185:
184:
183:
182:
178:
174:
170:
162:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
91:
87:
85:
82:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
59:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
651:
648:
617:
611:
607:
602:
582:Hong Qi Gong
557:
553:
534:Hong Qi Gong
524:
519:
501:
496:
476:Kyoko Aizome
470:
452:Hong Qi Gong
443:
431:
414:
366:
348:
340:
319:
302:
298:
286:
273:
256:
245:
239:
235:
210:
166:
56:
53:No concensus
52:
50:
38:
35:
419:RiverHockey
287:substantive
502:virulently
417:per nom. -
282:impression
117:Shoko Goto
73:Shoko Goto
622:Dekkappai
608:extremely
563:Dekkappai
507:Dekkappai
484:Dekkappai
371:WP:VERIFY
328:Dekkappai
591:Contribs
543:Contribs
520:What...?
461:Contribs
444:American
383:Vinh1313
196:Vinh1313
173:Vinh1313
161:View log
63:contribs
618:subject
558:present
554:created
497:Comment
471:Comment
367:Comment
274:Comment
261:Epbr123
236:Neutral
134:protect
129:history
613:Oldboy
603:highly
577:WP:BIO
529:WP:BIO
448:WP:BIO
436:WP:BIO
432:Delete
415:Delete
345:WP:BIO
343:- per
305:"? --
257:Delete
169:WP:BIO
138:delete
398:Neier
379:WP:OR
375:WP:RS
354:Neier
307:Hoary
241:h i s
155:views
147:watch
143:links
58:JERRY
16:<
626:talk
587:Talk
567:talk
539:Talk
525:this
511:talk
488:talk
457:Talk
423:talk
402:talk
387:talk
373:and
358:talk
341:Keep
332:talk
323:Here
320:Keep
311:talk
265:talk
226:talk
211:Note
200:talk
177:talk
151:logs
125:talk
121:edit
222:Fg2
217:.
159:– (
628:)
589:-
569:)
541:-
513:)
490:)
459:-
425:)
404:)
389:)
381:.
360:)
334:)
313:)
267:)
228:)
202:)
194:.
179:)
153:|
149:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
624:(
593:)
585:(
565:(
545:)
537:(
509:(
486:(
463:)
455:(
421:(
400:(
385:(
356:(
330:(
309:(
263:(
224:(
220:—
198:(
175:(
163:)
157:)
119:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.