426:
sources on the existence of the people or topics on the list. That was the major problem with the list. The article had existed for a good while, and still, there was no evidence provided that they were actual people! Anybody could have edited the article to insert a completely made-up and imaginary name! But no, I'm not interested in re-creating that list. However, I won't nominate it for deletion if the names on the list are verified to exist, either because those names link to articles, or because sources are inserted at the end of the list to verify their existence.
383:. However, that extensive list of names mostly with no articles (and not qualifying for them, hence the need for the list) was deleted with a statement implying a category (i.e. individual articles) would serve in its place. Now the category is being systematically depopulated. The options seem to be: 1) re-instate the list, and delete individual articles not meeting notability, 2) keep the individual articles, or 3) openly state Knowledge (XXG) is being censored of Japanese actress/model names.
596:- Thanks for agreeing that notability needs to be established for these porn actresses to have articles dedicated to them. And no, we can't expect Japanese porn actresses, or even mainstream actors and actresses for that matter, to have notability through American media. Which is why I keep repeating, again and again, that some of these Japanese porn stars would not pass a
557:
to check these publications to verify claims of notability. Perhaps there is an editor in the country who can help with this? This Amazon search is useful, but shows only the tip of a very large iceberg. It will clear as notable only the most extremely mistaken cases for deletion of currently active actresses. Amazon shows only DVDs (and to a lesser degree VHS) that are
540:
systematically depopulated), and 2) to quote, "the overwhelming majority of the names were unverified to even be real people"... I am in the process of just the first pass of verification, through the simplest of Amazon searches, and have so far come across only 2 or 3 questionable names out of (I'm guestimating) about 100 names searched so far. So, obviously,
367:, has starred in a very small number of non-notable porn movies, have received no awards, no notable magazine appearance, no mainstream work, etc etc. Not all porn actresses are notable, no matter what culture or what country they are from. WP should not act as a porn directory with an indiscriminate list of unknown porn actresses.
556:
that she has made enough appearances to be considered notable. Amazon is a mainstream source, and this model has 22 DVDs there. When I was in Japan, I know there were publications with names like "AV Actress," etc. which could be used as sources. Unfortunately I am not there now, or I would be happy
425:
I honestly have no problem with that list if all of them can be verified to be real people. You'll notice that almost every other list on WP have entries that link to articles that exist. I have never seen a list on WP where most of the entries do not link to articles, and that do not provide some
411:
test) for an article? Now, if you will agree to help reinstate the list, giving Ms. Goto honorary first entry, I will agree not only to take up the work you started in verifying and weeding the list down, I will agree to help weed out the articles on actresses who do not merit stand-alone articles--
616:? If the answer to these questions is "no", then she's not notable. Simple comments like "she's notable, Google search returns XXX number of results and she's been in 22 DVDs" do not help. Porn videos do not reach the mainstream like mainstream movies do. And also, please note that invalidating
583:
be the same for
American subjects and for international subjects (particularly those in non-English-speaking countries), if Knowledge (XXG) is to claim to be making any attempt at avoiding cultural bias. Sorry if I ran on too much, but obviously this article is part of a much larger issue. If there
362:
I don't know how many times I must tell you to assume good faith. All articles that get deleted are deleted through the AfD process. I do not delete the articles. Editors vote and discuss, and eventually an admin deletes the article if s/he deems it should be deleted. Non-notable porn actresses
569:
made over 100 appearances, who today have only a paltry representation at Amazon, because those videos are now out of print. For example, even Tani Naomi, who is mentioned even in mainstream discussions of
Japanese cinema and culture, would fail the proposed test. So, by sticking to this proposed
406:
OK, HongQiGong, I'll assume good faith in this statement. You claim the list was deleted because the names were unverifiable, though no apparent effort was made at the time to verify a single name. You have just done the work necessary to verify Shoko Goto. I think you will agree that 22 DVDs at
392:
That list ultimately got deleted because the overwhelming majority of the names were unverified to even be real people. Contrast that to most other lists on WP, all or most of the entries on them link to articles, and those articles in turn verify the existence and notability of the persons or
795:
than their
American counterparts who may, or may not be more active in film, but who generally stick to the adult entertainment field. Personally, I can't think of the name of a single current American porn star. However I can name several Japanese ones I have seen in mainstream media. Again,
539:
belongs on a list of
Japanese porn stars (which was deleted.) I am currently going through the old list (mentioned above) which was deleted for 2 stated reasons: 1) the subject would be covered by a category (implying every model would need an individual article, yet the category is now being
519:- I agree, but that's why I mentioned that she would not meet a Japanese equivalent of the test. She may not have been in Playboy (which by the way, has a Japanese edition in Japan), she also does not have any notable Japanese magazine appearance. She does not have anything
345:. However, the nominating editor also nominated that list for deletion, and ensured its deletion by deceptive means. He first edited that extensive list of models who had no article (and probably did not need them), down to a list of only models who had articles and stated
578:
comprehensive in scope than even the mainstream, paper encyclopedias. Now, I am with HongQiGong in believing that we need notability for stand-alone articles, and verifiability for mention within articles (i.e., entry on the List). The standard for notability, however,
849:
I don't see how that would be culturally biased. But even not using that criteria, this person still has no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. I'm really failing to see how she could possibly be notable enough.
412:
so long as they are (if verifiable, of course) allowed an entry on the list. I will also apologize for misinterpreting your actions as bad faith editing (i.e. nominating the list for deletion, claiming a category served its purpose, then depopulating the category,
459:, which I will work on later and model on other, long-standing WP lists. If you agree to this, I apologize for misinterpreting what appeared to me to be an attempt to simply ban all these names from WP both as articles and as entries on a list.
349:
that "This list really does not serve any purpose. That's what
Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars." He is now systematically de-populating that category. This is an underhanded way to censor Knowledge (XXG).
502:
per
Dekkappai. It is not realistic to expect a Japanese adult model to appear on Playboy, and if that is a criteria we need to refactor that right away to fit a better worldwide view. For what its worth, I've also listed this at
140:
770:
Japanese porn actresses that will meet the 100-film requirement. Probably not as many as
American porn actresses, but that just reflects that Japanese porn actresses are usually not as notable as American porn actresses,
340:
actor/models can pass is to blatantly attempt to censor
Knowledge (XXG) of Japanese models. As I have stated before, if this model is not qualified for a stand-alone article, she certainly qualifies for a mention at a
749:
notes in the 100-film an exception for non-heterosexual materials. Also, I do not believe that any
Japanese porn actors meet the 100-film requirement. Twenty-two sounds very high for a foreigner.
435:
I'm not asking you to help with the list, just to say that you won't nominate it for deletion, and will oppose its deletion so long as the names are all verified. If a particular name is
787:- During my stay in Japan, I saw models just like the ones you are nominating for deletion appearing on TV shows, radio, in mainstream magazines, public autograph signings... They are
548:
not have been in
Playboy"... etc. Shoko Goto has been major presence in this field for over a year. It would not be at all surprising if she has over 100 appearances (again, the
379:
To make my vote clear: I do not believe every model/actress deserves her own article. That's what lists are for, and 22 DVDs at Amazon certainly qualifies for a listing at
504:
584:
is an area on Knowledge (XXG) for discussing this subject (that is, Japanese adult model/actresses), please point me there, as I would like to participate in it.
535:
Thanks for the show of support, RFerreira & the below, I was beginning to think I was alone on this. My point is, if she doesn't deserve her own article, she
716:
52:
122:—However did you determine that she does not meet the "Japanese equivalent"? My command of the Japanese language is hardly sufficient for me to verify.
731:
Only 22 porn DVDs are hardly enough. And it's been determined that Google hits is not accurate in determining notability because of Google bombing.
490:
439:
verifiable, we'll delete the name, but not the entire list. If this is what you're saying, then I change my vote on this particular article to
49:
342:
346:
17:
196:
336:
test to models from other countries is to ensure a clear cultural bias at Knowledge (XXG). To now make them pass tests not even
139:
says one needs to be Playmate of the month), small number of films (www.amazon.jp shows only 22 results in a DVD search her name
456:
380:
871:
36:
486:
96:
416:
claiming the list was unverfiable without making any effort, or asking for others to verify a single name). Deal?
720:
870:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
691:
286:
332:
adult models can claim 22 DVDs at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Waldenbooks combined? To apply the 100-film
261:
312:
as an industry and a subject itself is definitely notable, but many individuals involved in it may not be.
482:
223:
687:
215:
182:
192:
746:
617:
601:
278:
136:
65:
854:
841:
828:
812:
800:
779:
753:
735:
723:
707:
695:
678:
664:
648:
628:
588:
527:
511:
494:
463:
430:
420:
401:
387:
371:
354:
316:
300:
269:
246:
230:
201:
187:
179:
166:
146:
126:
114:
100:
76:
719:
does indicate notability in my opinion. Our guidelines are failing us if they suggest otherwise.
397:
article particularly, and no, 22 porn DVDs on the Japanese Amazon is most definitely not notable.
296:
243:
407:
Amazon constitutes verification that the model actually exists, if not enough notability (by the
394:
58:
308:- To me, that only reflects the fact that "a lot" of Japanese porn actresses are not notable.
131:
No notable mainstream work in Japan, no notable awards, no notable magazine appearance (unless
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
209:
163:
123:
657:
621:
851:
809:
776:
763:
732:
661:
625:
524:
427:
398:
368:
313:
143:
92:
73:
254:
226:
797:
704:
585:
508:
460:
417:
384:
351:
291:
283:
239:
309:
266:
258:
110:
552:
test) to her credit. The problem (and the language/culture creates that problem) is
220:
212:
796:
applying the standards of one country onto another is a recipe for cultural bias.
838:
825:
750:
645:
544:
attempt or request was made for verification. I see the same thing here-- "She
86:
675:
715:
per above, Dekkappai in particular. Having 22 DVDs on amazon.co.jp and
328:
22 DVDs at as mainstream an outlet as Amazon is not notable? How many
363:
should not have articles on WP. It's a simple matter. This person,
864:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
620:
because it's only a proposal would subject these porn stars to
455:
Shoko Goto's name to a future, revised, verified and footnoted
281:
as is, this one doesn't come close even if applied loosely. --
570:
test, Knowledge (XXG) will, contrary to its stated goals, be
447:
is established. However, since verifiability of the subject
277:. While it would be hard for a lot of JAV actresses to meet
393:
topics in question. However, this discussion is on the
808:- In that case, the problem would be verifiability.
612:? Has this person made notable magazine appearances
135:
is a notable magazine and her feature was prominent,
766:, so the exception would not apply here. And there
604:. For example, has this person won notable awards
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
561:In verifying the list, I have come across several
505:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan
874:). No further edits should be made to this page.
656:- In which case, she would most definitely fail
608:? Has this person done notable mainstream work
837:The 100-film requirement in culturally bias.
8:
674:, notable and should be kept for expansion.
162:—That's good enough research for me! Thanks
523:to that of being a Playmate of the Month.
64:Not notable. Would not meet the proposed
624:, which they would more likely fail.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
644:guideline is an actual guideline. --
565:stars from 20 years ago, stars who
762:- I don't believe her work was in
457:List of Japanese female porn stars
381:List of Japanese female porn stars
343:List of Japanese female porn stars
24:
775:(relatively speaking, that is).
717:236,000 hits on Google (Japanese)
178:, non-notable porn actress. --
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
53:00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
855:20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
842:18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
829:15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
813:20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
801:18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
780:14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
754:08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
736:01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
724:20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
708:14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
696:11:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
679:07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
665:16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
649:07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
629:20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
589:20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
528:16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
512:07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
495:11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
464:21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
431:20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
421:20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
402:18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
388:18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
372:17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
355:17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
317:02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
301:22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
270:14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
247:11:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
231:10:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
202:05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
167:11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
147:04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
127:04:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
115:03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
101:02:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
77:00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
68:or a Japanese equivalent.
891:
481:Agreed then, non notable.
867:Please do not modify it.
451:been established, I say
32:Please do not modify it.
85:per nom, 80,000 g hits
48:, defaulting to keep.
598:Japanese equivalent
559:curently in print.
483:Michael Billington
164:Williamborg (Bill)
124:Williamborg (Bill)
703:per the above. --
694:
550:proposed American
299:
133:Bachelor Magazine
882:
869:
852:--- Hong Qi Gong
810:--- Hong Qi Gong
777:--- Hong Qi Gong
733:--- Hong Qi Gong
690:
662:--- Hong Qi Gong
626:--- Hong Qi Gong
525:--- Hong Qi Gong
428:--- Hong Qi Gong
399:--- Hong Qi Gong
369:--- Hong Qi Gong
314:--- Hong Qi Gong
295:
289:
264:
218:
185:
144:--- Hong Qi Gong
113:
74:--- Hong Qi Gong
34:
890:
889:
885:
884:
883:
881:
880:
879:
878:
872:deletion review
865:
764:Gay pornography
287:
262:
229:
216:
200:
183:
109:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
888:
886:
877:
876:
860:
859:
858:
857:
832:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
782:
740:
739:
738:
710:
698:
688:badlydrawnjeff
681:
669:
668:
667:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
530:
497:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
374:
322:
321:
320:
319:
272:
257:porn actress.
249:
233:
225:
204:
190:
172:
171:
170:
169:
152:
151:
150:
149:
117:
103:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
887:
875:
873:
868:
862:
861:
856:
853:
848:
845:
844:
843:
840:
836:
833:
831:
830:
827:
824:
820:
814:
811:
807:
804:
803:
802:
799:
794:
791:more notable
790:
786:
783:
781:
778:
774:
773:even in Japan
769:
765:
761:
758:
757:
756:
755:
752:
748:
745:
741:
737:
734:
730:
727:
726:
725:
722:
718:
714:
711:
709:
706:
702:
699:
697:
693:
689:
686:per above. --
685:
682:
680:
677:
673:
670:
666:
663:
659:
655:
652:
651:
650:
647:
643:
639:
636:
630:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
590:
587:
582:
577:
574:censored and
573:
568:
564:
560:
555:
551:
547:
543:
538:
534:
531:
529:
526:
522:
518:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
501:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
432:
429:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
410:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
391:
390:
389:
386:
382:
378:
375:
373:
370:
366:
365:even in Japan
361:
358:
357:
356:
353:
348:
344:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
323:
318:
315:
311:
310:Japanese porn
307:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
293:
290:
285:
280:
276:
273:
271:
268:
265:
260:
256:
253:
250:
248:
245:
241:
237:
234:
232:
228:
224:
222:
219:
214:
211:
208:
205:
203:
198:
194:
189:
186:
181:
177:
174:
173:
168:
165:
161:
160:
156:
155:
154:
153:
148:
145:
141:
138:
134:
130:
129:
128:
125:
121:
118:
116:
112:
107:
104:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
80:
79:
78:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
866:
863:
846:
834:
822:
821:
805:
792:
788:
784:
772:
767:
759:
743:
742:
728:
712:
700:
683:
671:
653:
641:
637:
613:
609:
605:
597:
593:
580:
575:
571:
566:
562:
558:
553:
549:
545:
541:
536:
532:
520:
516:
499:
478:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
413:
408:
376:
364:
359:
337:
333:
329:
325:
305:
282:
274:
251:
235:
206:
175:
158:
157:
132:
119:
105:
87:
82:
69:
63:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
747:WP:PORN BIO
721:Yamaguchi先生
618:WP:PORN BIO
602:WP:PORN BIO
279:WP:PORN BIO
255:Non notable
137:WP:PORN BIO
66:WP:PORN BIO
705:Myles Long
640:until the
521:equivalent
445:notability
395:Shoko Goto
238:per nom --
59:Shoko Goto
798:Dekkappai
586:Dekkappai
567:certainly
554:verifying
537:certainly
509:RFerreira
461:Dekkappai
418:Dekkappai
385:Dekkappai
352:Dekkappai
297:talk. ^_^
240:Mecanismo
207:Delete —
793:in Japan
642:proposed
614:in Japan
610:in Japan
606:in Japan
491:contribs
409:American
338:American
334:American
330:American
111:Khoikhoi
97:Contribs
847:Comment
806:Comment
785:Comment
760:Comment
729:Comment
654:Comment
594:Comment
533:Comment
517:Comment
377:Comment
360:Comment
306:Comment
188:nce Ong
120:Comment
839:Jecowa
826:Jecowa
823:Delete
751:Jecowa
658:WP:BIO
646:Golbez
622:WP:BIO
581:cannot
479:Delete
443:until
441:Delete
275:Delete
252:Delete
236:Delete
227:Review
176:Delete
159:Delete
106:Delete
83:Delete
70:Delete
563:major
221:on555
88:xxpor
16:<
835:Keep
744:Keep
713:Keep
701:Keep
692:talk
684:Keep
672:Keep
638:Keep
576:less
572:more
500:Keep
487:talk
453:Move
347:here
326:Keep
284:Core
267:Halo
244:Talk
142:).
108:nn —
93:Talk
789:far
768:are
676:bbx
660:.
600:of
546:may
507:.
449:has
437:not
414:and
288:des
180:Ter
72:.
542:no
493:)
489:•
292:at
259:Th
242:|
210:nn
195:|
99:)
95:|
91:(
485:(
263:ε
217:e
213:D
199:)
197:C
193:T
191:(
184:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.