Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aki Tomosaki

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. Ignoring comments from the blocked sockpuppet, there is still a consensus here that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Tomosaki

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. We do not know if the award was fan-voted or not. All about isn't a source, Amazon isn't a source and there's no independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate was not listed on the daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 16. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator's focus on fan-based awards is spillover from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination), where the Aki Tomosaki was pointed out as WP:WAX. While the subject's notability is questionable at first look, this nomination looks WP:POINTy. • Gene93k (talk)
- Comment. This does not meet WP:GNG and we have to be sure on awards that could be fan voted. There are also no reputable sources otherwise. Idol dictionary and amazon don't meet the standards here.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're going off on a tangent since the Adult Broadcasting Award itself does not establish WP:PORNBIO notability and most award ceremonies identify the fan awards they issue. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed that it doesn't establish pornbio notabilityChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Notability may be dubious but there are no outstanding delete !votes yet. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. Does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability established. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No real assertion of notability. Claimed award is given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and therefore fail the well-known/significant test. Moreover, the "mature actress"/MILF category by consensus general fails that standard, regardless of the awardgiver. Negligible biographical content. Little reliable sourcing beyond databases; other source are promotional or retailer pages. Of the two potentially reliable sources, the Tokyo Journal provides only background information on the porn industry in Japan, not the article subject; while "Sake-Drenched Postcards" is a component of a conspicuously dubious self-published source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close WP:NPASR Socks don't get free rides to delete the content of editors in good standing. This nomination was marked as a sock nomination before any !votes were posted. If there is no one willing to do the work to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument contradicts WP:SKCRIT. When the nomination has been made by the sock of a banned/blocked editor, the discussion may be not closed as a speedy keep "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's status was discovered", as was the case here. In this situation "the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wolfowitz's argument above (and others). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2017 (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.