Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asuka sakamaki

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asuka Sakamaki

I'm not the author of this VfD; I'm completing PhilipO's VfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see this as any more or less appropriate or relevant than any other article about a porn star. I'd say keep it. unsigned vote by 24.2.79.247 (talk · contribs)
• Delete. Fails the "average X" test. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another undistinguished product of the sex industry. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Antaeus Feldspar. -- DS1953 18:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like Monique DeMoan. She gets over 35,000 google hits in Japanese [1], and Amazon.co.jp lists 2 DVDs, 9 videos and 2 books [2]. One of her DVD's has an Amazon.co.jp sales rank of 18,259 in DVDs [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-20 22:01:56
• Keep as per WP:BIO as actress in commercially distributed movies with total viewing audience of more than 5,000. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability for an encyclopedia means having independent reputable/scholarly sources which are centered on the subject. That is an absolute requirement to writing a serious (non-op/ed) article. 35,000 porn sites with pictures of someone's boobs are not source material. I truly believe that verifiability is the least understood policy on WP, even among many admins. Has someone studied this person in a serious book, or journal article, or film documentary? Has anyone even written about her in a newspaper article? No? Then how can even the thought of including this in an encyclopedia cross our minds? The concept of verifiability is the conerstone of WP; Jimbo has made it's importance clear repeatedly. And yet, daily, it is being violated both in the encyclopedia and on the VFD pages.—Encephalon | ^ζ  01:22:17, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • So where are the independent reputable/scholarly sources which are centered on Cyrus Farivar? Kappa 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I missed this. I understand the difficulty that these decisions entail, Kappa. On a spectrum ranging from eminently encyclopedic articles to clearly unencyclopedic fare, there is a line that divides the two worlds. The problem is that there is no agreement between some editors about where precisely that line should lie. IMO, the Farivar article teeters right at the lower edge of what is acceptable for WP; he is, if you take an extremely broad view of notability, mildly notable, and there is one reference that I can see that one could use to write about him. The fact that it will be difficult to produce a decent article on him however is the big clue: if it's hard to write about someone because there are almost no secondary sources, that's telling you something. I honestly suspect that many contributors who vote to include almost everything on WP have never written a scholarly article, or a good encyclopedia entry, and do not understand how difficult it can be to write thoroughly referenced and reliably sourced material. This is not surprising: there are 700,000 articles on WP. Do you know how many are of sufficient quality that they are considered "featured"? About 700.

Clearly, you and I understand the verifiability requirements differently. Your reasoning, from comments both here and elsewhere, indicate that you believe that anything and everything should have a place on WP if it can be verified in some way. That is to say, you take the verifiability requirement to mean simply verifying existence of the subject, and little else. If this was the standard, it is very difficult (for me) to concieve of the product as an encyclopedia, and I am unable to understand some of the decisions made using this criterion. For example, Kappa, you've just woted on VfU to keep the Marvin Lara article deleted. Yet, conversely, you also voted to keep articles on Doody Trap, and a nude model/"actress". Lara has appeared in bits of many movies seen by millions of people; the model has appeared once or twice in bits of a newspaper seen by millions of people. Why the difference? What is transparently clear of course is that neither of them is even remotely remarkable; no one has produced any study of either, there are no reputable sources focusing on them that form a biographical nexus around which an encyclopedia article can be written. And that's the crux, Kappa. You never seem to acknowledge that this is an encyclopedia. What you wish to do here is suited for Everything2, which doesn't call itself an encyclopedia. But WP does, and is aims to be. I think it is impossible to reconcile your beliefs about verifiability with your decisions, and with the encyclopedic nature of WP, without resorting to cut-offs which are enormously arbitrary. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  20:01:44, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

• • • Sounds like grounds to renominate his entry for VfD... ;) Dottore So 05:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazon seems independent enough, we use its subsidiary IMDB as our major source for info on movies/actors/etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:32, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
• Delete. Do you know how much porn is out there in the world? Sdedeo 03:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of porn, and TV, and baseball, and journalism, and since wikipedia is not paper, it can aim to cover every aspect of all of them which is verifiable and has a significant audience. Kappa 03:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. I moved this to the proper title. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:28, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

• Keep, seems popular in Japan. cution 20:30, 23 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.