Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino

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 Keep. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hikari Hino

Hikari Hino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Person is not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, particularly as no entry in Japanese wikipedia Akihabara 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PORN BIO. MER-C 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and does not meet WP:PORN BIO; she has a redlinked entry on the Japanese AV女優一覧 (List of AV Actresses). If she's not notable enough to have an article in Japanese, she's more than likely not notable enough to have one in English. --Limetom 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Risnm 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The use of WP:PORN BIO for Japanese performers is highly controversial, as many editors are of the opinion that the Japanese industry is sufficiently different from the American industry that many of the provisions of the guideline are inapplicable. However, the article as it stands does not seem to claim any real notability even within a Japanese context; the filmography section is not impressively long and does not indicate how major a role Hino played in the cited titles, no appearances in other media are mentioned, etc. — Haeleth Talk 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mainstream source (adult sources would no doubt show more) Japanese Amazon shows 24 DVDs currently available for this actress. How many American porn stars have 24 DVDs at Amazon? The Japanese and American pornography industries are different and to ignore those differences is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia. To put things in perspective, consider a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [1] So, "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" fails the American 100-film test. For more comparison, the nominating editor has recently edited at a one-sentence stub on an actress with one (1) known, minor appearance in one (1) known film, verified only by one (1) link to IMDB. Yet he previously mass-nominated articles in this category for deletion on "notability" grounds. 24 DVDs at Amazon is certainly a sign of reaching a broad audience, and far more notable than the subject of the other article. If this article needs improving, let's improve it. My online time is taken up with re-instating a list the was deleted through what I am convinced are dishonest means. Once I've got that list (lists now) back up, I fully expect to spend my time improving these articles. I'll try to do some work on this one today. Dekkappai 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. The article had been tagged for questionable importance since September. Nothing had been done to add more meat to it.
   2. There is no article for this actress on Japanese WP.
   3. There is no established guidelines or rules here to say that "24 DVDs at Amazon" makes a Japanese porn actress notable. I personally don't think it does.
   4. What other editing I do and what other articles I nominate for deletion is irrelevant to the fact that this actress seems non-notable and hardly anything had been done since the article's existence to assert her notability. However, if you think the Helen Kim article I edited should be nominated for deletion, by all means, nominate it. I myself question that actress's notability. Heck, I'll nominate the article myself.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think the Helen Kim stub should be deleted. I think it should be improved. Deleting it would prevent a better article from being written on Helen Kim, and thereby remove valid information from Wikipedia. The exact same thing goes for the more notable, and better developed article on Hikari Hino. I don't edit there, but I watch the Japanese Wikipedia. Many recently red-linked actresses there have new articles, and I won't be at all surprised to see one on Hikari Hino started soon, since she clearly deserves one. Dekkappai 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add - I understand you are having a difficult time assuming good faith. But let me point out that I tagged this article with the importance tag three months ago[2]. When I nominated it for deletion[3], it had the exact same content in the article as it did when I tagged it for importance three months ago. Namely, it had two sentences, with a short filmography. I am perfectly justified in nominating this article. Furthermore, I want to repeat that there is absolutely no criteria anywhere on English WP that says "24 DVDs on Amazon" establishes notability for Japanese porn actresses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above and please see systemic bias Baristarim 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If anything, having 24 DVDs available at Amazon indicates that Japanese "porn" actresses are not in the same league with "porn" actresses of other cultures, and to try to force one standard across all cultures is a good example of bias as mentioned above. Neier 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Edit conflict) I really doubt this is a case of systemic bias. She is non-notable, and if there isn't a Japanese article on her, there probably shouldn't be an English one. A quick Google search brings up mostly adult sites and such, and I really don't see any verifiable sources in either an English or a Japanese search. I have nothing against an Idol having an English page, its just that there are no reliable sources that prove her notability; even if modified to include Japanese versions of things, I don't see her passing WP:PORN BIO. --Limetom 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The bias comes in treating the Japanese and American porn industries as if they were the same. Obviously they are not. Creating standards for one which the other is expected to pass is a way of creating cultural bias at Wikipedia. Suppose those of us interested in the Japanese side said an actress needed to have 10 videos at Amazon in order to pass notability. How many American porn actresses would pass? Also, if you know anything about Japanese popular culture, you know that these actresses/idols are far more visible, and therefore more notable in Japan than their American equivilants are in the U.S. When I was in Japan, I saw models and actresses exactly like this one all over TV, not to mention magazines, newspapers, photo books... all in standard book stores, not hidden away in an adult book shop. Dekkappai 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The bottom line is, there is no seperate criteria for Japanese porn stars here. So she has 24 DVDs listed on Amazon. Why and how does that make her notable? Why does that make her stand out in the industry she's in? These are questions that have never been answered. There are hundreds and thousands of different industries and how they are perceived in different cultures. For example, calligraphy artists are probably more well-known in East Asia than they are in Western countries. The question here is - how does having 24 DVDs listed on Amazon establish that she's widely known? Do we have any information on how many people are buying these DVDs from Amazon? And exactly how many consumers would make her notable? What if only 10 people purchased her DVDs on Amazon? The American porn industry and the Japanese porn industry are not exactly the same, but maybe you just have to accept the possibility that the average Japanese porn star is simply not very notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment amazon japan is a major retail outlet, and i fail to see why you are requesting obviously unattainable information such as the number of sales. are the notability of north american porn stars hinging on their sales on amazon.com? do you really wish to establish a guideline for all porn stars to sell a verifiable number of videos? it is very true that the japanese porn industry is different from the north american one. it is also very true that one shouldn't base notability on the "probability" that someone might not be notable, but facts such as proven presence in a major retail outlet.--Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The notability of North American porn stars do not hinge on their sales on Amazon. And if they had 24 DVDs on Amazon without meeting WP:PORN BIO, they would be considered non-notable. If we know how many DVDs this person is actually selling, we can try to establish notability. Given that we have no such information about DVD sales on Amazon, saying "24 DVDs on Amazon" is an unverifiable claim to notability. Like I've been saying, how does "24 DVDs on Amazon" establish notability? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment getting unobtainable info such as unit sales on amazon japan (just like it's impossible to get sales numbers on amazon.com) doesn't directly meet anything in WP:PORN BIO, however it establishes the fact that she has been prolific in the short time she's been in the business, which is a criteria in porn bio. --Hexvoodoo 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• How exactly does it establish that she's "prolific"? Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do we even know that some of those 24 DVDs don't show the same exact scenes? I ran a search for her on Japanese Amazon, and even though I don't read Japanese, between my English and Chinese reading, I can spot which DVDs are simply "best of" videos that show scenes that are in other DVDs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment i think it's safe to say that amazon japan doesn't violate anything in Wikipedia:Verifiability. if it says hikari hino is in these dvds, i am going to believe it. even if we want to be picky and discard anything mentioning "best of" (and btw we can't verify that those are indeed compilations featuring duplicate scenes), we still have 19 dvds in 1.5 years. that is still prolific --Hexvoodoo 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing that she is in those videos. I'm questioning how the availability of those videos on Amazon automatically qualifies her as having a prolific career. Like I said, what if only 10 people ever bought those videos from Amazon? Is she still notable then? That's completely unverifiable and it's an unverifiable claim for notability. Besides, who exactly decided that "24 DVDs on Amazon" is enough for Japanese porn actresses? Who came up with that arbitrary number? I don't see any guidelines that mention this. What if she had 20 DVDs? 15? At what number is notability achieved? I can completely agree that the American and Japanese porn industries are different, but what makes "24 DVDs on Amazon" notable, and who gets to decide that it's sufficient? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment first of all, it is complete conjecture when you say maybe only 10 people bought her dvds. just like if i were to say maybe a million people bought her dvds. since this is completely unattainable information, not just for hikari hino but for just about any porn star, we should leave out baseless conjectures. second, there is no set number that universally defines prolificness, and that is good, because you acknowledge that japanese porn industry is different from american porn industry. in my opinion, and those who have voted keep, more than 1 dvd per month is prolific by japanese standards. thus she meets the prolificness criteria of WP:PORN BIO, and is notable. --Hexvoodoo 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that the information is unattainable is actually my point - it's unverifiable, so yes, we should leave that information out. Which means "24 DVDs on Amazon" does not necessarily show notability. And the filmography section of the article actually only lists 11 videos. Furthermore, the prolific guideline in WP:PORN BIO specifically states "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. I'm afraid that has not been shown yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment yes leave the sales information out (which means conjecture about how her dvds might have low sales is pointless) as it is unverifiable. however, being on an established retail outlet with more than 1 dvd per month does show that she has been prolific - which is the point. what is actually listed in her article's filmography is obviously not a full list (again, see amazon japan), and having an incomplete filmography is of course not a reason for deletion either. her movies fall into both "asian" and "busty" genres, so she qualifies. --Hexvoodoo 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, the availability of those DVDs do not serve to establish how well known she is. We don't know how many people actually buy those DVDs. Thus it's an unverifiable claim. And she may or may not fall under the busy genre, but to put her in the Asian genre, you'd be guilty of the same cultural bias that's been mentioned here. That's a western perspective. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this is getting comical. you just agreed that sales numbers shouldn't (italics yours) be used at all, because it's all conjecture. you also seemed to understand that 24 dvds on amazon japan is only being used to indicate prolificness, a criteria for notability, not to directly prove notability. now you turn around and sing the old tune that amazon records are no good for notablity because you don't know the sales numbers. let me repeat this again: amazon records are to prove prolificness, and don't use the sales numbers as an argument because they are not known. unless you have something new to say about this - i have established prolificness. now let's go to the gnere part. she is a metric G cup and her films are in the busty genre. and yes the asian genre is culturally biased, yet it is an established genere. i however am not using my cultural bias to attempt to delete an article for a foreign actress because i think "maybe only 10 people bought her dvds".--Hexvoodoo 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think its a safe I know about as much about Japanese culture as you, Dekkappai. But as the policy stands right now, she's not notable. Perhaps it would be better to restart the discussion about Idols (currently in the archives) of WT:PORN BIO? Also it would probably help to put a notice on the WP:BIAS. As the policy is right now, she's not notable. After looking over all of the relevant information, I would have to say that the policy, in my opinion, probably does need to be changed. For now, I'm going to stick with policy, though. --Limetom 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I certainly didn't mean to question your knowledge of Japanese culture or anything else, Limetom, and hope you didn't interpret me that way. I only meant to point out the differences in the cultures and the inadequacy of the policy in this case. I missed the discussion going on in those two areas, but will try to bring up the issue there. I understand your position-- the policy is inadequate, but it is the policy. My position is that policies, when seen to be inadequate or obviously biased, should be ignored, interpreted or modified. Regards. Dekkappai 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meets criteria 7 of WP:PORN_BIO: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." She has been in at least 24 videos in a year and a half; prolific by japanese adult industry standards. the fact that she is not yet in the japanese wiki is not a valid reason to delete - it is not a criteria in WP:PORN_BIO. --Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PORNBIO is only good for North American English-language porn. It is systematically biased WP:BIAS against *everything* else everywhere in the world (including North America, since there's Spanish and French language porn). WP:IGNORE PORNBIO is useless in this case, ignore it. 70.51.9.22 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was about to go gripe about the 100-film requirement at the Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) guideline, but now I see that this old requirement has been replaced with, "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" So there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability. 24 DVDs is "multiple," and Amazon is a mainstream media outlet. Notability is established. Dekkappai 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Amazon is not a media outlet. It's a retail store. Media outlets are news channels, mainstream magazines, TV, mainstream movies, etc etc. Criteria #5 specifically points to Air Force Amy as an example of this. The article for Air Force Amy was kept because she appeared on HBO multiple times, not because her vidoes appeared on Amazon multiple times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Amazon is not a media outlet." Sure, sure, Hong. Look on the bright side. At least your effort to delete the Helen Kim article seems to be going very well. Dekkappai 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Really have no idea what the point of that comment is. Helen Kim is not notable and an article on her ought to be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has now been established as per WP:PORN BIO criteria #5 #6; from my knowledge 24 films in a little over a year is notable in Japan. --Limetom 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "from my knowledge 24 films in a little over a year is notable in Japan" Correct, Limetom. To repeat: Japanese pornographic superstar Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [4] The dead-enders are going to argue for deletion no matter how absurd the argument becomes... e.g. "Amazon is not a media outlet." Dekkappai 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I refer you to how the US government defines a media outlet[5] (check section 323). And again, number of DVDs on Amazon is not an established guideline for notability. It's an arbitrary number that you've came up with. How about if a Japanese porn actress has 20 DVDs on Amazon? What about 15? At what point is she not notable, and who gets to decide on this number? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• deleteIf there ever was a case that showed the absurdity of numerical guidelines, this is it. I would take this article more seriously if one on this actress had been in the Japanese WP.DGG 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No compelling evidence of notability. "Because she's Japanese typical standards do not apply" is not an argument for establishing notability. Fairsing 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Keep. I do not find the fact that she has performed in 24 films evidence of notability, and Amazon is not a media outlet in the sense of establishing notability, so many of the arguments put forward here are not convincing to me. However, the fact that there are 13 DVDs with her name in the title (see Dekkappai's list below) is evidence to me of notability in her genre. So I'm changing over to keep. Fairsing 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" 24 DVDs is "multiple," and Amazon is a mainstream media outlet. Notability is established. "International subjects must pass an American test of notability" is a recipe for cultural bias. Dekkappai
    • Once again, Amazon is not a media outlet. It is a retail store. A media outlet is TV, movies, newspapers, magazines, etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional Comment to Fairsing Compare: 1 1/2 years after her debut, Hikari Hino has 24 DVDs at Amazon. Japanese pornographic superstar Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [6] Dekkappai 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Number of DVDs on sale at Amazon has not been an established criteria for determining notability of anybody. Also, many of those DVDs simply contain repeated scenes she has done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (Though I'm trying to prevent getting sucked into another of Hong's famous absurdist arguments.) 1.) If Amazon is not a media outlet, All Media Outlet had better change its name fast. 2.) Amazon is a reliable source for proving that said media exists. 3.) No one is setting up an arbitrary number, we are following Wikipedia's guidelines: "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" 4.) "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" made 39 movies in 16 years. 24 DVDs is clearly notable there. Dekkappai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll be happy to address these points: 1) "All Media Outlet" derives its name from "outlet store". And also, the US government probably has a better definition of "media outlet" than the brand name of a retail store. 2) Nobody is denying that media exists. The issue here is whether or not this person is notable, and number of DVDs on Amazon is an unverifiable and arbitrary claim to notability. 3) This person has not appeared in mainstream media outlets. There is seemingly no mention of her ever been in mainstream films, mainstream TV, mainstream magazines, etc. 4) "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" Hitomi Kobayashi (小林由美) is apparently not even famous enough to have an entry on Japanese Wikipedia. So what does that say about this particular actress who is not "Japan's Queen of Adult Video"? Who proclaimed Hitomi Kobayashi "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" anyway? Her manager? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note the above editor mis-links to the non-existant Japanese Wiki article on Kobayashi YUMI, not the existant one on HITOMI. But then, the above editor helped delete an extensive list of Japanese actresses claiming that it was impossible to determine that they even exist.
    • Kobayashi Hitomi (小林ひとみ) aka Matsumoto Kaori (松本かおり) Debut: 1986; Birthday: 1965/9/2 Tokyo, Height: 151cm, B:82cm()-W:58cm-H:88cm, Blood Type: AB, Shoe Size: 21.0cm Avidol Profile, News: July 18, 2003, News: March 25, 2004; Amazon: VHS: 98, DVDs: 88, books: 42, Popular Music: 18

Though the above editor has obviously never heard of her, she was famous enough for Nikkatsu to hire to star in her own theatrical film series in 1987, to stave off collapse, according to: Weisser, Thomas and Yuko Mihara Weisser. 1998. Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: The Sex Films. Vital Books : Asian Cult Cinema Publications. Miami. ISBN 1889288527, p.155, 221-222 Dekkappai 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I searched for her name in all kanji characters. Still, who decided that Kobayashi Hitomi is the benchmark to measure the notability of all other Japanese porn stars? Did Nikkatsu hire Hikari Hino to star in her own theatrical film series? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This actress also clearly passes point seven on the notability list: "7. There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." Amazon Japan lists not one, but thirteen DVDs with her name in the titles (not just mentioned in the cast after the title). (Her name is written "妃乃ひかり", look for it in the titles):

1. Gカップ爆乳FUCK 妃乃ひかり
2. 拷問くらぶ 妃乃ひかり
3. 超絶品ボディ 妃乃ひかり
4. コスプレ召使い 妃乃ひかり
5. ハイパーデジタルモザイクVol.035 妃乃ひかり
6. FETISH FLASH 妃乃ひかり
7. 女乳 妃乃ひかり
8. 家庭教師を召し上がれ*妃乃ひかり
9. feel 妃乃ひかり
10. Gの好奇心 妃乃ひかり
11. 恥ずかしいけど痴女なんです 妃乃ひかり
12. M乳玩具 妃乃ひかり
13. 恋愛シンドローム 妃乃ひかり

I can link directly to the entries on the DVDs above if necessary. How many times, and in how many different ways does notability have to be established? Dekkappai 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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.