Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (second 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 keep.--Kchase T 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoko Goto

Shoko Goto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NN person. And now that WP:PORNBIO is a guideline, I thought that this article deserved another AFD vote. Previous discussion can be found here. Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it is possible this article should exist on the Japanese wikipedia but not here. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Theoretically, since all the Wikipedias have the same goal, then any genuinely notable article on one should appear on all. Confusing Manifestation 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Here we go again. Expect to see every article in the Japanese pornography category targeted for deletion because it doesn't meet American standards of notability. 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 test. Goto Shoko has been a major presence in the Japanese adult field since 2004. Mainstream outlet Amazon Japan currently sells 23 DVDs, 1 book and 1 VHS tape featuring this model. How many American pornographic actresses can make the same claim? In other words, within only 2 years, her output as listed at Amazon (there are adult-video only sites that will list more) has nearly tied the "Queen of Adult Video." Dekkappai 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep shoko goto easily meets at least two of the seven criterion.
  1. "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month), or similar titles in other major magazines." she has been featured in Bachelor magazine, a premier big-bust adult magazine in japan. Bachelor has consistently featured well-known western models like chloe vevrier and linsey dawn mckenzie, and is similar to Score in north america.
  2. "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" shoko goto has had high output in the big-bust genre of videos despite being in the business for only two years. as verified by the number of her videos on amazon japan (a mainstream outlet that does not list all of her work), as dekkappai has already demonstrated.

i must talk about a comment made earlier that the article could be in the japanese wikipedia but not here. if it is important enough to be in the japanese wiki, why is an english equivalent of it not important enough to be here? --Hexvoodoo 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep AFAIK notable enough in the Japanese porn scene. It's not acceptable to hold people from non-English-speaking nations to higher standards of notability - it's not a 'notable to Americans' or 'notable to the British' or whatever standard. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above (except nom). --Oakshade 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So that we don't have to go through this again, wouldn't it be better for you, Dekkappai and Hexvoodoo, to either update the articles so that these questions of notability aren't consistently brought up or have the guideline updated to better outline who would and would not be notable enough for inclusion? The latter of those would probably be simplest. Considering not very many people outside of Asia, or possibly outside of just Japan, may know how big/established/notable/etc. Bachelor magazine is, it would probably save you a lot of headaches having to justify your keep votes. Dismas|^(talk) 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologize if I was a bit cranky up there, Dismas. You were probably unaware of the history behind this-- Earlier in the year, a certain editor who has expressed hostility to this subject on numerous occasions, nominated an extensive "List of Japanese Female Porn Actors" for deletion, edit-warred it down into only blue-links, claimed its function would be served by a category, and then succeeded in having it deleted. He then proceeded to begin systematically nominating for deletion every article in the remaining category. In other words, using underhanded means, he was attempting to censor Wikipedia of any meaningful coverage of the Japanese adult entertainment field. My limited Internet time has, since then, mostly been spent in re-working that list-- extensive sourcing, research, etc. It should be ready for presentation before very long. Once it is up, I fully intend to work on these articles, and make sure they're up to standard. I'll try to work on this particular one later today. If there was a discussion as to guidelines/notability standards in the pornography field, I missed it probably because I don't monitor the entire field, but just the Japanese subjects, which interest me. Regards. Dekkappai 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thank you for the apology and clearing that up. I was unaware of the bad faith user or whatever you want to call them. Dismas|^(talk) 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, and I'm also perplexed by the attitude of trying to limit Japanese articles to the Japanese wikipedia. Neier 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 10:34, 7 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.