Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria Kato (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuria Kato

This article was previously deleted at this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new information, namely sources from Japanese media, many in the Japanese language. Please consult the DRV for this information, as well as the revised article. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Does not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent of the test, since she has no notable awards in Japan, no notable mainstream work in Japan, no notable magazine appearances in Japan, etc etc. Would definitely not meet WP:BIO if that official test was applied instead. And please note that Google hits has been determined to be an inaccurate way to determine notability of porn stars, so arguing for KEEP based on Google hits is invalid. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Question The above editor asserts without evidence that the model "does not meet WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent of the test." WP:PORN BIO has 8 critieria:
1) Has the subject won one of 8 American awards. Can the editor please give the names of the Japanese equivalents to these American ones, and show how he searched to show that the model has won none of these?
2) Has the performer been a Playboy Playmate? Japan has a Playboy, has the editor checked all these?
3) "Performer has made unique, noteworthy contributions to his or her field." A subjective criteria. How has the editor determined this model does not pass this?
4) "Performer has been successful in crossing over into other fields" Many of these Japanese AV actresses appear in mainstream media, television, radio, musical CDs, etc. Has the editor checked the model's career for evidence of this, or the lack thereof?
5) "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy" What media outlets has the editor checked to confirm the model does not pass this test?
6) "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" See #4 above.
7) "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." What Japanese database has the editor searched?
and finally:
8) "Performer has been in 100 or more movies (resource: iafd.com)." This is apparently a good and thorough database for American adult performers. I have searched even the most well-known of Japanese performers and found not one hit. The editor claims Japanese performers must pass this test, or the Japanese equivalent. Please show us the Japanese equivalent of this database, as I have some interest in the subject and could really use a great resource like this. In lieu of such a useful database, I have been using a mainstream Amazon search. Unlike her American counterparts, this model shows a strong presence here.
Now, if there are no Japanese equivalents to the above tests, the the editor has made a statement in bad faith, and the proposed American test cannot apply to Japanese models, because of the vast differences in the industries, the cultures, and the availability of easily-searched databases.
I will withhold my vote until the editor presents his data. Dekkappai 18:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not required to verify non-notability to delete. It is required to Verify notability to Keep. Fan-1967 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Bald, unsupported and uniformly pasted assertions of non-notability, and tests apparently done intentionally wrong (the mis-spelled "Yuria Kato" English Google test), and others clearly biased towards American subjects should not be systematically applied to every article within a category on a Japanese subject if Wikipedia is to claim to be trying to avoid cultural bias and censorship. Dekkappai 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, how is she notable then? If there is no supporting verifiable evidence, the article remains deserving of deletion. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick Google search turns up nothing notable in terms of mainstream work, awards, or magazines, in Japan. The question remains - how is the actress notable? The number of Google hits is an invalid test, and an arbitrarily assigned number of DVDs, like "24 DVDs" or "35 DVDs" is no grounds for a notability criteria when WP:PORN BIO says 100, and there is no special test just for Japanese porn actresses specifically. The only tests we have are WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. Now, this article has already been through an AfD (result was Delete) and also a Deletion Review, yet nothing notable has been found on the actress. It's time to delete the article. All of the assertions made for keeping the article had not been valid and verifiable evidence that she's actually notable. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The editor bases his vote on a Google search, which he obsessively reminds us is banned (for the record: 643 hits on "Yuria Kato", 5,770 on "Yuria Katou", 95 on "Yuria Katoh" and 121 on "Katou Yuria" for a total of 6,629 hits in English. Add that to the 490,000 hits her Japanese on her name ("加藤ゆりあ").) He further imagines a non-existent "Japanese equivalent" to the tests in the proposed WP:PORN BIO, which is clearly biased to the American adult entertainment industry. He then asserts that the subject would not pass this imagined Japanese equivalent. The editor continuously engages in straw-man, intentionally mis-leading and circular-logic arguments. Personally, I feel a vote based on such criteria should be disqualified. I will offer my vote later after more research, and looking at actual, as opposed to imagined information, possibly even searching in Japanese... as opposed to, say, Swahili. Dekkappai 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith, instead of accusing other editors of being "intentionally misleading".
    As for your specific argument, I would point out that there are not 490,000 Google results for her Japanese name: there are 490,000 estimated results. Note that this translates into just 421 unique results when you try to view them all. Observe how these figures can be used as an argument for or against keeping the article! This is why the Google test should be discounted completely. — Haeleth Talk 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice, Haeleth. I will try to follow that, as I have been trying, with considerable difficulty, with this editor. My belief is that Wikipedia's rules and procedures are put in place for us all to follow, in order to maintain a productive environment-- not as weapons to be used against other editors, but followed at one's own whim. As for the straw-man Google argument, once again, I did not bring it up. The other editor did, as he continously does in these discussions. Dekkappai 22:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, I'm trying to be culturally lenient to the fact that this porn actress, and others as well, are Japanese. The only tests we have for notability are WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. If you wish to invalidate a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO, we can always directly apply the test instead. Unfortunately, there is no other tests for notability, and this actress would fail both WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO if directly applied. Some editors won't even use WP:PORN BIO because it's a proposed test. Being Japanese doesn't mean that automatically guarantees a person an article. Japanese people can still be non-notable, and throughout all the discussions, no evidence of verifiable notability has been shown for this particular person. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep per my usual rule that anyone who has an entry on the Japanese Wikipedia is probably notable in a Japanese context. — Haeleth Talk 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Previous AFD was closed after only 3.5 days. I left a note at the closing admin's talk page, but it was never responded to. Neier 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haeleth. To counter WP:BIAS in the english wikipedia, it seems prudent that in determining importance/notability of a person or object in a specific culture we should give weight to to what that culture thinks is important/notable. Neier 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The 100-film notability test is given at WP:PORN BIO with a database clearly designed for the American adult industry. As far as I can tell, there is no comparable database for Japanese adult industry, nor are there awards comparable to the American ones listed. It's a different country, a different culture and a vastly different industry, it requires different notability criteria. In lieu of an imagined, comprehensive database of the Japanese adult industry comparable to the one given at WP:PORN BIO, I searched the global, mainstream outlet, Amazon, and found 19 DVDs and 7 VHS tapes for 加藤ゆりあ (Yuria Katou) listed there. Models who have shown similar levels of notability (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2) have recently failed AfD nominations. For a comparison on an American adult entertainer, I searched Traci Lords at Amazon, and found a grand total of 0 DVDs. Yuria Katou is more visible at a mainstream Japanese outlet than Traci Lords is at an American one. Does this make Traci Lords non-notable? I have very little interest or knowledge in the American adult industry, but even I have heard of her. Japan and the United States are different countries with very different cultures. To strictly apply a test clearly designed for the American adult industry to models of other countries is to promote cultural bias and/or censorship at Wikipedia. Dekkappai 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Traci Lords is not exactly a good comparison. She was a big part of a child pornography controversy in the U.S., and articles like [1] can be found easily on the web. If there's a Japanese porn actress that's a big part of a Japanese national child pornography controversy, you'd be damn right she would be notable enough. The question for this particular porn actress remains - how is she notable? And is the evidence verifiable? What makes 19 DVDs notable? Does a Japanese porn actress with 18 DVDs mean she's not notable then? How about 17 DVDs? We have no criteria here. We only have WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. So where is the threshold for notability of Japanese porn actresses if we do not use these tests or the Japanese equivalents of these tests? Until some specialised notability test is set up for Japanese porn actresses, User:Dekkappai's reasoning here would mean every single non-notable Japanese actress deserves an article. I totally understand that Japanese people's notability can't be measured with American media outlets, but throughout this AfD, the first AfD, and the deletion review, the question has not been answered - how is this person verifiably notable? She's notable because she has 19 DVDs listed on Amazon...? Japanese or not, who made up that rule? If she is not notable, then the article should be deleted. It's very simple. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I meant my Amazon search to be used in addition to Haeleth's entry above pointing out the subject's article on Japanese Wikipedia. This is a good indication that Japanese editors consider her notable. Dekkappai 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 19 DVDs= reached a large audience = notable enough for wikipedia. Kappa 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous "keep" comments. John Smith's 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm leaning keep per Amazon presence, but the rampant linkspamming on the article has to go first. We're not a porn portal. Link to reliable sources about the actress (Japanese ok, but relevant parts should be translated), not to websites peddling her wares. So for now, Delete as unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 17:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Neutral per Dekkappai's edits. I'm still not supporting an article that has no reliable sources to back it up, but since this seems common procedure among porn entries (American or Japanese, I don't see a cultural bias in the lack of sourcing) I won't propose to treat this one differently than all others. ~ trialsanderrors 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I was very uncomfortable putting those links in, Trialsanderrors, but verifiable sources are called for. If the links were not there, it would be labeled "unsourced." Barring an objective, comprehensive database on the Japanese adult industry, what's the alternative? Dekkappai 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I think your point about linkspam is valid, Trialsanderrors. If you check the article now, you may find it better. In an attempt to address your concern, I have taken out the direct links to the videos, and placed sources in the reference section (without links), to show that the filmography is sourced. (Commercial site or no, the presence of the video at the site does prove the video exists, and is verifiable, I would think.) I hope this, in addition to the Amazon presence, and the Japanese Wiki article, helps. Dekkappai 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable. not extremely notable, but notable. --Nobunaga24 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above comments. Frankly I'm getting pretty annoyed at the systemic bias towards US-related subjects around here. You cannot generalise criteria for American porn actresses to Japanese ones, especially with things like "awards" which don't necessarily have ANY equivalence whatsoever elsewhere in the world. If the American Porn Association sent American porn actresses an amount of golden donkey statues every year based on their fame and importance, would we delete porn actresses from every other country in the world because none of them have received a single golden donkey? Cherry-picking criteria from WP:PORN BIO (which is pretty biased in itself) is absurd. --Rankler 13:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Then I ask again, what does make her notable? How does "19 DVDs" on Amazon make her notable? What if a Japanese porn star has 18 DVDs? 17 DVDs? What makes her notable, and verifiably so? --- Hong Qi Gong 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - First off, the proposed PORNBIO guideline is culturally biased, because not all cultures treat their "porn stars" in the same way. In the US, you would be hard pressed to find Traci Lords or other names in mainstream retail outlets like Amazon. In Japan, there is not such a distinction. What makes her notable is the same thing that makes other actors or models notable. Namely (from WP:BIO):
        • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
          • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
          • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
          • An independent biography
          • Name recognition
          • Commercial endorsements
      • So, the fact that there is multiple DVDs on sale at mainstream outlets with her name in the title qualifies her for notability in my book, no matter the type of movies, and no matter the classification as a "porn star". Neier 22:46, 9 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.