Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2

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 no consensus to delete, defaults to getting kept. - Bobet 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hikaru Koto

Not notable. Would not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent (notable awards and magazines, mainstream work, etc etc.) Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note - second nomination. First nomination is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto.
• Note 2 - Link to this discussion was broken on the article page. I just fixed it. Neier 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments made in December, (with updated Ghit count of 740,000). Neier 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Google hits is not an accurate way to establish notability of porn stars, according to the proposed notability test for porn stars. See WP:PORN_BIO#Noting_dubious_methods_of_establishing_notability. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PORN BIO. --Vsion 02:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 680,000 Google hits (my hit count at present) on the Japanese name. Using the American WP:PORN BIO test for Japanese models/actresses/idols is inherently dishonest and biased. This nominator/user continues his one-man blue-nose crusade at censoring Wikipedia of all Asian models... Dekkappai 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please assume good faith. 1) Google hits is an inaccurate way to determine notability of porn stars. 2) I specifically mentioned that this person does not meet a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO. No notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, no notable awards. There are Japanese porn stars that are notable, unfortunately, this particular Japanese porn star is not. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a Japanese version of wp:porn bio wouldn't ask for 100 performances. She's an entertainer whose work has obviously reached a large audience. Kappa 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why not? Also, she has no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, no notable awards. etc etc. She is not notable. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • She's a performer whose work has reached a large audience. She is notable. Kappa 17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's really no evidence of that. She is not notable. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So you think a large number of DVDs, videos and books about her have been published without reaching a large audience? Kappa 15:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It fails WP:PORN BIO. Daniel's page ☎ 07:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 755,000 Google hits (today), plus Amazon.jp lists 59 DVDs, 9 videos, and 6 books when her name is searched. See: "古都 ひかる". Yet nominator claims, "No notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances." Amazing what you can find if you actually look around rather than delete an article simply because you've never heard of it, and don't approve of the subject. The subject nearly passes even the absurd 100-film American test. Why not set a 5-book minimum for porn-star notability? That way, Japanese models like 古都 ひかる are notable, while probably every American porn star is NOT? Applying standards of one country onto another is an attempt to ensure cultural bias on Wikipedia, if not a covert attempt to censor it. Dekkappai 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do wonder when you're going to stop attacking me. Like I mentioned on your Talk page, I'm not an admin, I do not have the ability to delete articles. Editors vote and if concensus is reached that a particular porn star is notable, then the article won't be deleted. You have to get this through to your head - I do not delete articles. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – Several books/magazines (mostly magazines) listed at online used shop (Japanese; NSFW). Many duplicates, but I also spot multiple unique entries for two of the more popular men's magazines (Friday; Weekly Playboy). Neier 23:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - if the guideline is still 'proposed' then it is not final. We should not be voting based on a preliminary proposal. --Golbez 22:30, 28 August 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.