Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miki Sawaguchi

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miki Sawaguchi

Not notable. Would not pass the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent of the test, having no notable awards in Japan, and no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Would definitely fail the official WP:BIO if that were applied instead. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. 290,000 hits in Google test by her Japanese name. (29,200+697 by English name.) — Instantnood 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research, especially when it comes to porn actresses, whose names are Googlebombed by an entire sub-industry. Wikipedia:Google test explains this. To make an argument for keeping that holds water, please cite sources. Please cite a biography of this person, that allows readers to verify the things written in this article. How can readers check that this person was, indeed, "employed at both a coffee shop and a clothing store"? Uncle G 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is an older model who has certainly passed the proposed American 100 film test. Japanese Amazon currently still lists 27 DVD, 24 Videos, and 4 photo-books. I don't have time at the moment to search for a 100-film list, but will later if necessary. As for the WP:BIO test: Google hits are specifically mentioned as a proposed test, so she would pass that with flying colors. Dekkappai 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wrong. WP:BIO mentions the Google Test as an "alternative test", not as a proposed test. It does so because this is a test that some people use. WP:BIO is merely being descriptive. However, WP:BIO also links to Wikipedia:Google test, which explains why this test is fundamentally flawed, in particular in the case of pornography.

    As I said above, rather than counting search results, please cite sources, to demonstrate that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Please cite a biography of this person. This article cites no sources at all. Uncle G 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Would you like to cast a vote on this, Uncle G? --- Hong Qi Gong 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What I read at WP:BIO is, "Alternative tests... Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed (but haven't necessarily received consensus support) include... Google Test." If I'm wrong, if it is an alternative test for notability, then notability is proven, case closed. However, I notice the word proposed in the sentence, and say otherwise. I happen to know, because I have some degree of interest and knowledge in this area, that Miki Sawaguchi is a well-known model with extremely high visibility in both the adult and the mainstream media in Japan. Now, I know this sort of personal interest and knowledge in the field does not constitute verifiability, and I am making no claims it does. I haven't checked the article, but will work on it later, and am fairly certain I can prove notability and verifiability. (By the way, if I did not have any interest and knowledge in the area, I would not be pasting a uniform untested and unsupported assertion of non-notability on every article in the category.) Dekkappai 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Google Test specifically mentions that it is not an accurate way to determine notability of porn stars. And the actress remains non-notable for having no awards, mainstream work, notable magazine appearances, etc, even in Japan. Bottom line is, we have to either apply WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO, even allowing for a Japanese equivalent in terms of Japanese media outlets. There are no other tests to determine notability. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again: Counting Google hits is not research. The Google test is fundamentally flawed, and both WP:BIO and what you are replying to immediately above link to a page that explains this. Please read it. Once again: Please cite sources. Google is a tool for finding sources to cite, not a metric in its own right. If what you claim is true, then biographies of this person that you can cite will exist. Uncle G 20:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • This is beginning to resemble a Monty Python skit. I am not claiming Google is a proof of notability. I not only read the passage, I pasted it. I will try to find proof of notability later. Since we agree that Google is not in and of itself a proof of notability, let us agree to... uh... agree... No sense in continuing this argument. Dekkappai 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The page that you read and copied is WP:BIO. However, the page that you've been asked to read, twice, is Wikipedia:Google Test. Uncle G 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, this is another WP:POINT nomination. We should not vote to delete an article based on a proposed guideline. And if speedy keep is not a valid option, then keep, notable. --Golbez 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - In that case, we should apply WP:BIO. But she would fail that official test also. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment HongQiGong continuously asserts the false claim that Japanese adult stars must either meet a proposed American test, or they must meet a standard world biography test. Again, the WP:BIO specifically mentions Google under Alternative tests as a proposed way to establish notability, a test this model would pass easily. Wikipedia:Search engine test also "describes a method used by some on Articles for Deletion to approximate notability." And, again, I am not saying a Google search establishes notability (and I'm not going to bite on another nonsensical Google-test argument), however the WP:BIO does mention it. As for HongQiGong's claim that there are only two possible guidelines for ascertaining notability (the American porn one and the standard world biography one), there exists an entire Category devoted to differing means of establishing notablity issues for different subjects. Applying a strict American test to Japanese topics is at best a way to ensure cultural bias at Wikipedia, at worst an underhanded way to censor Wikipedia. Dekkappai 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Which is why I mentioned that she would not pass under a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO. In Japan - no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So... if you aren't saying the Google test confers notability, why do you keep bringing it up? Either it confers notability, or it's not worth going on and on about. — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, this is another WP:POINT nomination Golbez. This is becoming increasingly more ridiculous. If this editor were seriously interested in notability and verifiability issues, he would tag the articles for sources, check and find sources, or even do some work and clean up or expand the article himself. He does not. Instead, with no attempt at checking notability or verifiability himself, he often first tags these articles for speedy-deletion, and then reverts when that tag is removed. Just short of a 3-Revert violation, he then further tags the articles for deletion with a pasted, pre-prepared, un-checked, un-supported assertion of non-notability. During the discussion, he then apparently willfully withholds pertinent information (researching using Japanese names instead of Roman letters), and engages in non-ending, nonsensical circular-logic arguments. I've been trying to assume good faith from this editor, but in all honesty, by nominating this subject-- a multi-media, international star (I will update the article with sources soon)-- for deletion on "non-notability" grounds, he has really crossed the line. It is quite apparent that his intent is to disrupt Wikipedia through frivolous deletion nominations, circular arguments, and censorship. Lots of time is being wasted by this editor. Recently another editor was blocked for mass-delete tagging of similar articles. This editor is even more insidious, however, since he is doing it slowly and wasting everyone's time with these repetitive discussions. Is there anything we do, other than follow him around contesting his obviously baseless nominations for deletion? Dekkappai 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Question This is not related to the AFD, but can someone explain to me why every article on a Japanese celebrity of any sort lists the blood type? Just been wondering that for quite a while. Fan-1967 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting question, Fan-1967. Here you go: Japanese blood type theory of personality. Dekkappai 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I figured there had to be something like that, the way some westerners might list a zodiac sign as significant. Learn something new every day. Fan-1967 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tsdng96 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable according to the standards of WP:PORN BIO (i.e. no notablity conferred by recognition from any Japanese equivalents of the American organisations and publications listed in that proposal). Note once more that WP:PORN BIO specifically suggests that the Google test be discounted because it is even less accurate for adult performers than for regular people; this is no less true of Japanese performers than of Americans.
  More to the point, however, the article still provides no sources whatsoever for its biographical information, and thus fails WP:V dismally. Whatever your opinion of the biographical guidelines, WP:V can in no way be made out to be an Americocentric policy designed to censor Wikipedia: it is a fundamental principle on which an encyclopedia must be founded. Note therefore that articles which fail it this dismally are not, in fact, keepable without the failure being addressed. Perhaps the people who want this article kept could stop railing against cultural bias long enough to ensure that their article doesn't actually violate fundamental policies like that? — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added to the article, and added sources. The test mentioned was put into place from an entirely American perspective, addressing the American industry and American society. It completely ignores the vast differences between the US and some other cultures. Even the most non-notable of these Japanese models have a presence on mainstream outlets like Amazon. Miki Sawaguchi is a retired model, yet still has 27 DVDs, 24 Videos, and 4 books listed at Amazon. She was a regular on two television shows and appeared as a guest on many more. How many retired American porn stars with articles can show this much notability? Instead, we're forced to prove that Japanese models meet the proposed American 100-film test. How much verifiability do we need? An academic treatise on the subject? These are porn stars we're talking about. Miki Sawaguchi has had articles in U.S. magazines concerned with Asian cinema, such as Oriental Cinema and Asian Cult Cinema. I have listed as sources those I could find. The Nikkatsu Roman Porn genre existed for 30 years before a book was written on it in Japan. It took till the year 2000 before a book covering the subject to any degree was printed in English. Again, insisting that Japanese adult actors pass a test set up by and for American adult actors ensures cultural bias. If any Japanese adult star is notable enough for an article, Miki Sawaguchi is. Wikipedia makes claims of being uncensored, and to fight a cultural bias. If an article on a multi-media, internationally known star like Miki Sawaguchi can seriously be considered for deletion on grounds of non-notability, something is seriously wrong somewhere. Could it be people with no interest, no knowledge, and hostility to the subject are nominating and voting to delete these articles? Dekkappai 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I see a lot of talk about a Japanese equivalent of the proposed WP:PORN BIO, but there is no such thing yet. Maybe if there were a Japanese equivalent with consensus, then we would not have to argue the same points with all these articles one by one. User:HongQiGong seems to be have a pretty idea about what he thinks it should entail, since he espouses the Japanese equivalent in each of his deletion nominations, so, maybe it would be a good time to hammer out this fabled guideline so we can all get something more important done. Neier 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, what there is is a lot of micharacterisation of WP:PORN BIO as being "American", for some reason. That mischaracterisation isn't supported by reading the page. It says "news outlets", not "American news outlets", for example. Uncle G 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, WP:PORN BIO specifically makes mention of mainstream work, being the monthly feature in magazines like Playboy or Penthouse, awards, etc etc. If a Japanese porn actress do not have similar credits to her name, then she would not be notable. Mainstream work in Japan? Notable magazine appearances in Japan? Notable awards in Japan? etc etc. The only arguments I've heard so far for keeping the plethora of articles on seemingly non-notable Japanese porn actresses is that they have xxx number of Google hits or they have some random number of DVDs, like "24 DVDs, she's notable". What? Who decided that 24 DVDs, with no awards, no mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc, is notable for a Japanese porn actress? And why are American porn actresses subjected to a much harsher test? But regardless, like I've also said before, if you do not like WP:PORN BIO or a suggested Japanese equivalent, we can always fall back to WP:BIO, which this particular actress would not pass either. Something you may not be aware of - it is already very lenient to nominate an article on a Japanese porn actress based on an imaginary equivalent of a proposed notability test. WP:BIO is much stricter. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good idea, Neier. When it comes down to one of the most well-known adult actress/models in Japan seriously being considered for deletion... something is seriously wrong somewhere. Dekkappai 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've started the expansion of the article, added references, filmography, etc., etc. This is just a beginning, of course. I'm sure there is much more verifiable information that can be found. Others are invited to contribute. Dekkappai 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Ref Dekkappai. John Smith's 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And that would be possibly a bad faith vote[1]. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And the accusation that it might be bad faith just because of that is of itself bad faith. John Smith's 18:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator continuously asserts that these models would not pass Japanese equivalents of the WP:PORN BIO. It needs to be pointed out that there are no Japanese equivalents to the 8 awards, the comprehensive database, etc. listed at WP:PORN BIO, and any speculation on the editor's part on whether the subject would pass these imaginary tests is irrelevant. The American and the Japanese adult entertainment industries are vastly different, and WP:PORN BIO is a test based on the American industry. The Japanese Amazon currently still lists 27 DVD, 24 Videos, and 4 photo-books on this model. Beyond that, she still passes even the American test since she has been a regular on two TV shows, has appeared on eight others, has made two musical CDs, and has an extensive list of magazine appearances. This is clearly an indication that the model has reached a wide audience, and has appeared successfully in multiple media. Articles on American subjects with vastly less notability have been retained (see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Amy). Japanese models who have shown far less levels of notability (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2) have recently failed AfD nominations. There is absolutely no valid reason to delete this article. Dekkappai 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Dekkappai--Nobunaga24 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the article speaks for itself with regards to the amount and variety of work she's done in Japan. WP:PORN BIO (still only a proposed guideline) is massively biased towards the US porn industry and clearly cannot be applied here. --Rankler 10:16, 10 September 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.