Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination)

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 deleted under WP:CSD#G5. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Tanaka

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Has been deleted twice before by AfD but has been recreated once again. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, saying ___ fails ___ without giving any reason as to why is ludicrous. There is no reasoning or explanation of any failure in that statement you made, just that "she failed because I said so".

Second, I do not care what past things went on here. I could easily write a horrible article on anyone, get it deleted and that would be the end of it forever. I could also do it in the same format and then it would be deleted due to that. This is not a system that serves any other purpose than to get things deleted.

Reasons why she is WP:BIO:

1)'Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration She won the AVN award which immediately meets this goal AND SHE DOESN'T EVEN LIVE OR PERFORM IN AMERICA! There is no question or doubt on this one. If she does not pass this, any AVN award winner is immediately up for deletion.

2) Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. She is one of the first Japanese porn actresses to make it in the West. Marcia Hase is the only other one I can really think of. If someone else can give me some names, I'd love to hear it. She won an AVN award, making her possibly one of the first Japanese to do so. She is one of the true first crossover stars and is really famous for her genre of busty girls. If she is not notable, no one is.

3)Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.' I sourced two TV appearances which were on TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! and her Japanese page has more(https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitomi_(AV%E5%A5%B3%E5%84%AA)#.E5.87.BA.E6.BC.94). She has her own photobook which was sourced in the article and she was involved with the AVN awards.

Now, let's talk about [[WP:GNG]. Reasons why she is WP:GNG:

1) Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. - She has appeared in 430+ films. More films than most actors on this website. She has her own photobook that I sourced. She has a non-porn dvd that I sourced. She has been featured in 2 different television programs, amongst others that I couldn't find an internet source for from TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!. Both are big television channels in Japan. I also provided sources from The Score Group, The New York Daily News and Playboy. This is not some girl off the street here.

2)'"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!, The Score Group, AskMen,The New York Daily News and Playboy are reliable as is DMM, which does not allow user submitted content and comes straight from the companies.

3)"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. This was met.

4)'"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] Playboy, TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! are independent here. She's never even worked for playboy.

5)"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] She was in over 430+ movies. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is. She's been featured in tv, she has her own photobook, etc.

I would also like to know how articles like Aki Tomosaki. Maki Hojo, Tina Yuzuki, Rin Aoki somehow pass both of these tests, but Hitomi Tanaka does not.

I am also going to add in an extra note that I done contributing to this site and its deletionist policies either way. This was not worth my time nor effort, and the very tiny "VIP club" here is not worth dealing with. I will be asking for deletion of any porn article from here on out if she does not meet requirements, as no one will, since what is being said that TV Tokyo, American newspapers like The New York Daily News,AskMen, Playboy and others are not reliable sources.

Even if you disagree with 1 of my points, overall, I do not see how this fails the test for WP:BIO and WP:GNG, especially for porn, which the main stream media in America does not cover and can't cover due to its mature content. The only way a pornstar is getting any coverage in America is if they aren't doing porn, have died or have had an incident....not for their actual work. It is almost impossible for a porn star to get on this site with the current guidelines in place, and the rules on here are very towards America, not Japan, where porn is run completely differently. Hitomi has clearly passed this test and I don't think whatever some random guy did on her page before should uphold forever.

ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We discussed several of these points before. First, claims of unique contributions to porn require attributions to independent reliable sources. Sources like Scoreland don't meet that standard. The AVN Award win came from a fan vote. The consensus in the previous AfD debate was that the award was not significant enough for PORNBIO. The sources in the new article are still of generally low quality. (Vendors and men's magazines are generally not reliable). Finally, reputable media generally shun pornography. That's why we have PORNBIO. The actor may be of general interest if significant achievements are acknowledged by a credible body of peers or critics. Initial impression: still not there. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new topic. WP:BIO does not state that it can't be fan-voted. This is the rule "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". Nowhere does it say, it cannot be fan-voted, meaning you are incorrect. So we are establishing that TV Tokyo, SKY PerfecTV!, Livedoor, AskMen, The New York Daily News are all low quality, unreliable and insignifcant sources? If so, this needs to be addressed on this website immediately. I do not see how any porn article can ever be submitted on the site again, if we are invalidating 13 different sources here and if we've already admitted that the main stream news is never going to give any coverage to porn. ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. Negligible independent reliable sourcing if any. Deleted in September 2015 and October 2016, recreated with just enough unreliably sourced/trivial additional information to evade speedy deletion as a repost, but still has no legitimate assertion of notability or reliably sourced nontrivial biographical content. Despite the massively inaccurate wall-of-text above, there's really nothing new here. The subject has not won an AVN Award, but only an AVN Fan Award, a recent concoction that is neither particularly well-known no at all significant; even more telling, her "award" is for "Most Spectacular Boobs", and recent practice has consistently been that such body part awards do not meet PORNBIO requirements. Claimed Daily News coverage is no more than a single photo in a clickbat gallery without substantive text or an associated article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO does not state that it can't be fan-voted. This is the rule "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". Nowhere does it say, it cannot be fan-voted, meaning you are incorrect. If you would like to make an amendment to that rule, you will have to go through the formal process, as this is not supported.

SALT recreated with just enough unreliably sourced/trivial additional information to evade speedy deletion as a repost - Wikipedia needs sources. There is no information that should be put on here that cannot be sourced. Any info on here that should be sourced, should be deleted immediately.

What about the TV Tokyo, AskMen, Livedoor, SkyPerfectTV!, her photobook, her dvd's, coed.com and Refinery29 sources? Wikipedia needs to know that TV Tokyo and SkyPerfectTV! are not sources that can be used, meaning every television show ever aired on there is now not usable. Is her photobook also an unreliable source? With this, I believe every single Japanese Porn article on site is available for deletion, so I will seek to it that these are deleted.

Recap(Hullaballo Wolfowitz) has stated that - These sources are now unreliable, insignificant and should be removed from the site - The New York Daily News, Askmen, TV Tokyo, SkyPerfectTV, Any books, all dvd's about someone, Livedoor, Playboy, The Score Group, coed.com and Refinery29. Being in 430 films does not make you notable. Appearing on multiple TV shows does not make you notable. Winning an AVN award if fan voted, makes you not notable. Is this all correct?

ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as per above - No evidence of notability and the salting speaks for itself here, Anyway fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Lots of new content with this version. Very little of it is based on reliable sources. As I noted above, most of the references are low quality (vendors, film databases). The citations to reputable media outlets are trivial mentions and cast listings, not acceptable for establishing notability. The only substantial reference appears to be an interview/press release, a primary source. Still fails PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty poor justification. Seems the main issue is not actually the article or its information inside, just the nature of the article. As I've said, if she is not notable, there is no way any Japanese actress can ever make it on this site. I do not believe a 10 volume encyclopedia endorsed by every newspaper would be suitable at this point.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 01:06, 17 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.