Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria Kato (2nd 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 delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuria Kato

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found.

Previous AfD closed as "keep" in 2006 (via a DVR) on the strength of arguments "the 100-film notability test is given at WP:PORN BIO" (since deprecated) and the number of DVDs (non-useful criteria).

10 years on, I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability under current standards. Little or no independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornographic film actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we no longer keep articles just because the subject has been in a very high number of non-notable films, so there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 27 March 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.