Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri

Add links
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 no consensus. Despite the outcome of this AfD, can I suggest to the maintainers of this article that there is a huge question mark over the reliability of these sources - Rightly or wrongly, I forsee us being right back here again very soon if something more substantial is not found. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airi & Meiri[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Airi & Meiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have tried CSD, I have tried Prod, so now its time for AfD. Why? This is not notable, not encyclopedic, completely lacking of reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:NOTE criteria. It is actually a CSD A7, but some editors disagree, without anything in way of reasons, except perhaps WP:ILIKEIT, but even that is speculative, as the edit summaries do not reveal a reason, nor does the talk page. Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that this duo satisfies WP:PORNBIO (they are just minor porn actresses) or other more general notability requirements. --DAJF (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very little bio info and/or sources. Versus22 talk 06:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - silly PROD removal, obviously the pair are completely non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied it but got a complaint so I prefer leaving this nomination to run it's 5 days. --Tone 14:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hold off on Speedy delete: This is a pair of verifiable Japanese celebrities with at least one hit song. I won't be able to work on it today, but last night I made a start with THIS list of their rankings in the past two years at one of the largest AV retailers in Japan. They finish in the top 50 both years, have two in the top 50 for several months, and are in second place for two months. Also their Ja-Wiki article shows an extensive list of works. I won't be able to do much work on the article today, but intend to research and improve it during the course of the AfD. Once I've put together what I can, I'll cast my !vote. But in the meantime, I don't believe this is a candidate for Speedy. Dekkappai (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - HUGE in Japan. Non-notable only in an America-centric sense. Proxy User (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict)- When adding material or sources make sure that you do not engage in WP:PUFFery, and that all material is from reliable sources. I have reverted a bunch of changes and "sources" added to the article, most of them from blogs, promotional materials, and catalogs. Please read WP:PORNBIO and WP:MUSIC as to what constitute establishing notability: we are not disputing that these women exist, we are disputing that they are notable enough for inclusion here.--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment redacted Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted I mean, one of the sources is amazon.co.jp. redacted --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • redacted The tags are there for the very reason they were created, and the issues they cover have not been addressed: as A Man In Black noted, none of the lard added was from WP:RS. Contrary to his assertions, I alreade expressed above an openeness to even accept Japanese reliable sources if properly translated, as I am all for countering systemic bias. However, all that has been produced is blogs and catalogs, which all they do is establish existence of the subject, not its notability. --Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep a Japanese language version of this article exists, and generally the Japanese Wikipedia seems to accept fewer marginal topics than the English one. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience, Japanese Wikipedia seems to be more lax about sourcing for biographies of living persons, and the Japanese article on Airi & Meiri is totally unsourced - which is probably why it is up for speedy deletion. --DAJF (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fanwank. Jack Merridew 08:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rules at WP:PORNBIO clearly state: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." The magazines she has appeared in, satisfies that requirement. Dream Focus 16:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for the lack of notable mainstream media here. Everything here is porn, most of it specialist porn. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much correct. Mainstream sources in Japan would mean mainstream TV and magazines, not porn magazines. If we accepted porn magazines as mainstream per WP:PORNBIO, then WP:PORNBIO wouldn't be needed, as all actors and actresses in a magazine would be notable. This argument defies all common sense. --Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream is defined as a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence. Porn counts as mainstream, especially in Japan. Playboy counts in this country doesn't it? In Japan they advertise pornography on public billboards, sell the underwear of teenage girls in vending machines, and have legalized prostitution. Sex is treated differently there. Its as mainstream as anything else. The magazines seem well established. Don't know where to find their exact sales figures at though. Dream Focus 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These two are not being featured in the Japanese equivalents of Playboy or Penthhouse over even Hustler, which is what one would generally define as mainstream porn. English Wikipedia has an Anglo-American bias, that is reflected in policy, and the usage of mainstream in WP:PORNBIO. However, even if Japanese society is much more open to sexual matters than Anglo-American society, there is still a concept of mainsteam and not mainstream that is irrelevant as to pornography or morality, and has to do with notability. For example Kei Mizutani is no doubt a pornographic star, but also a mainstream, notable one, whose role in Weather woman and in the mainstreamization of AV in Japan in the 1990s is more than well sourced. In the case of the Anglo-American cultural melieu, Pamela Anderson comes to mind as a prime example. The subjects of this AfD don't even come close in notability. Sorry, but wikipedia is not a directory of anyone who has fucked in front of a video camera.
Again, find sources like Adult Video Newsor its Japanese equivalent (translated, of course) or some express coverage like "Kei Mizutani: Queen of Sex, Sumo, and Softcore" in She magazine, Vol.2, #13, p.3-11. and then we talk. But this here article is at best a lazy excuse for an article, at worse porn-cruft. --Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing verifiable to say about these paticular actresses, other than listing their work (with helpful references to catalog sellers!). Dekkappai's breathless protests and blatant canvassing are kind of annoying, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Porn cruft, no proper reliable sources seem to be provided.--Sloane (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've done some work on the article. redacted THIS is the version of the article I am discussing now. Searches around the web show that Airi and Meiri are indeed major, popular idols in Japan, though the habit of Japanese media of taking down news articles and archives makes that difficult to prove. Nevertheless, what is in the article now shows that the twins made at least 10 magazine appearances, several original videos, and have been popular in video collections. They have had top-selling videos in the cosplay genre for the past two years. They have been interviewed and appeared in live performances in conjunction with their AV career. It needs to be kept in mind, as Dream Focus points out, merely by being major AV idols in Japan, their public profile is much higher than any comparable U.S. star-- including the very top U.S. porn models. The Australian Journal of Media & Culture writes, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred."[1] In addition to this, the twins have released popular music recordings, performed live, and even served as an inspiration on a network TV cartoon. I intend to do further work on the article, but just what is put together now is "notable" by any rational definition of the term. Dekkappai (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment redacted none of the sources you are using are reliable sources, and one in particular (Amazon.co.jp) was verified to not contain what you say it does. redacted if they are as notable as you claim, and if you know japanese, it should be trivial for you to find reliable sources stating this. However, after two days of drama and name calling you have not been able to do so. redacted --Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should be an easy keep. Well cited and easily passes WP:MUSIC or WP:NOTE, The fact that the nominator even suggested that this is CSD A7 shows strong bias toward WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Huge idols in Japan and has been cited in several notable sources. Valoem talk 05:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then find the sources and put them in the article. Just saying so doesn't count.--Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Releasing one single on a minor independent label is not normally sufficient to pass the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Which criteria do you think are met here? --DAJF (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Amazon link that Man in Black was unable to verify shows best what is going on here: The link is to the Japanese Amazon. All he had to do is follow it. It's right there. Apparently he couldn't read it, so he searched US Amazon and found nothing. Now the link is called a "fraud." Second. I did not add that link, it was only put in to verify the CD. Third. My revision today added a back-up citation to the archived original official site of the CD. And this was reverted within minutes of an extensive re-write. redacted Dekkappai (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was able to locate it. It's right here, and I followed it. Amazon.com is cool, though; you can browse their site in your language of choice, regardless of the nation/region you're using. So I just flipped it over to English, and I noticed that Amazon didn't carry the disc, had never carried the disc, and had the sort of incomplete listing associated with Amazon Marketplace selling (which is the equivalent of an eBay listing.) Since the Amazon link hardly established that the release was a major one (gonna go out on a limb and say Sexual Kiss Records ain't a major label) and as a private-seller-listed item the sparse factual claims weren't even reliable, I nuked the link. It was one of many poorly-referenced claims I removed, along with the poor references.
    Now. Can the bad faith accusations, especially when you aren't even bothering to ask people why they did something. The only things I'm hostile to are forum-shopping, grandstanding, and most of all bad sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted and removed excessive bolding for clarity I am all for keeping this article, as I have expressed multiple times, if WP:RS establishing notability are found. All of the edits you have done are random collections from blogs, catalogs, etc. Now, there is not always a need to read all sources if they come from domains that obviously betray their origin. Also, when using sources in languages other than English, you have to translate what they say or they can be removed on sight. I still remain open for this article to be kept, but it should be done in a manner that is in accordance to our content rules. redacted --Cerejota (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you read Japanese, Cerejota? The sources are on the page. Secondly im not sure what is going on but why are you reverting Dekkappai legitimate edits which he added information and improved the article? Valoem talk 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, see above: when using sources in languages other than English, you have to translate what they say. However, I can read domain names and use google translator. Its pretty easy to know that "Amazon.co.jp" (or Amazon.com, before I get called a racist again) is not a reliable source. --Cerejota (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am still waiting for you to tell us in which notable magazines these have been covered?--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I didn't mean magazine i meant source. I am not fluent in Japanese but I do know that www.coremagazine.co.jp is reliable and non trivial so is http://www.km-produce.com/ I am not sure about av channel and xcity perhaps someone with more knowledge in this field could help us. On the contrary since you do not speak Japanese either I assume you could not possibly know if they are unreliable. Valoem talk 07:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i was just wondering where it says that a source must be translated or else it is removed? Also I heard that Amazon is not reliable in certain cases I was just wondering if you could direct me to which exact policy says amazon is not a reliable source. Valoem talk 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE what does it say about non-English sources? This:
"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." - "if quoting" should be pretty clear - doesn't say anything about always having to translate what a source says if not quoting. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I just did a lot of research. First off Amazon can be use for certain things such as release dates and sales etc. It was their blogs and some reviews that was suggested to be unreliable. Secondly, citing sources in other language is allowed, here is what was said on WP:Citing sources -

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

It is okay to use foreign sources if no English equivalent exists and English citation are simply preferred not required. They ask for footnote translation only for quotes. I asked Dekkappai to translate regardless though.

Finally how do u expect Dekkappai to translate further if you continually remove his citations? redacted I am going to restore Dekkappai last edit as it was in good faith and not in violation of any policy. Valoem talk 06:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm a bit pedantic so: Actually, that isn't what it says, it does not ask for translation in a footnote - what it says is that IF an editor translates a direct quote (into English) from a non-English article, then they should include the original (non-English) quote in a footnote or the article. According to the section you have quoted, there is simply no requirement for a translation of any part of any source in any language in any article. Just curious - why should anyone be asked to provide translations in this particular case? Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redacted Valoem talk 07:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks. Focus on the content, not the editors. --Cerejota (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify who you are accusing of personal attacks. I certain hope you are not accusing me. Disagreeing with your opinion is not a personal attack. Valoem talk 12:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cerejota, you should not delete things just because you don't think they are perfect, and need work. No article is ever uploaded 100% complete. It is built and improved upon over time by different editors. People are working on it now, so kindly stop deleting things, and discuss what you disapprove of on the talk page. And as I have said on the talk page, if anyone doesn't like the reference tag of a movie that links to a commercial site that sells it, then you should erase the reference, not the entire movie listing. It was included just to prove the film existed, nothing more. If no one doubts the film exist, then you don't need a reference for it. Although commercial sites that sell things have always been linked to, with the cite web tag, to show where date of release and other information comes from. Dream Focus 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. It's obvious editors are making good faith efforts to add sourcing which has been met with rather vigilant cross editing efforts. Perhaps this wouldn't feel so tense if it was spread over months but it's been occurring over days. Dekkappai, you may want to make use of the wayback machine (simply google search wayback machine) which archives webpages. This might help locate some of the deleted webpages you refer which in turn would provide the sources and notability being sought. This, as of yet, seems to inch above GNG although Music notability doesn't seem to apply. -- Banjeboi 11:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone's saying sources are being added in bad faith. The sources just suck. Nearly every single source is either a fanpage devoted to specialist porn or a service offering to sell you pictures of these twins.
    You mention WP:GNG; can you point to a reference that isn't a fansite or trying to sell you naked pictures of these two? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they are notable, it is not indicated by the terrible terrible sources people are trying to use in the article or by the 40 minutes I've just spent looking into them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think an editor fluent in Japanese needs to put input in this AfD. I imagine its quite hard to prove or disprove notability without understanding Japanese. Cameron Scott do you know Japanese? Valoem talk 14:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some input from people with fluency in Japanase would be welcome. However, this is ultimately irrelevant for two reasons: 1) any reliable source from Japan would be easy to spot using Google Translator and asking a few questions; 2) The onus to prove reliability and notability lies with the editor adding the material, not with those removing the material: I do not have to prove the subject is not notable, I simply say that notability has not been proven. Verifiability not truth means that notability in wikipedia != fame, but = coverage in reliable sources. So far, notability not proven as per WP:PORNBIO. There is indeed plenty of evidence that this article is not a hoax, as there exists a catalog of work, but existense of work, even extensive work, != notability. Wikipedia is not IMDB.--Cerejota (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem reading Japanese without a translator. Before adding my vote at the start of this AfD, and before Dekkappai started adding material to the article, I spent some time googling for sources that might indicate media coverage and hence notability. I was unable to dig up any coverage of this duo in the mainstream media, TV, or even in the tabloid press, which strongly suggests to me that they are nowhere near as "huge" in Japan as some editors above have suggested without anything to back up their claims. Dekkappai subsequently seems to have spent quite a bit of time scouring the web for media coverage, and the fact that he too was unable to find anything other than passing mentions in niche-market porn magazines or on fan sites seems to pretty much confirm that there is no notability here. --DAJF (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knock it off. This is ridiculous, on both sides. I am going to liberally redact the personal attacks in this AFD. Should new ones crop up, the speaker will be dealt with harshly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentMan in Black-- This is not a personal attack, I am commenting on your editing at the article. You have twice removed a link to the Amazon listing for a CD, claiming it doesn't exist. With all due Civility, it exists, I've checked it several times since you have repeatedly removed it. HERE it is. With all due civility, do you know how to click on a link? Please do so. You will see the words, "ダブルファンタジア [Maxi] " That is "Double Fantasia [Maxi]", you will see, under that "あいり&めいり" that is "Airi and Meiri"... Your reversion of this is simply incomprehensible to me. More: you have changed the word "starring" to "appearing in" as "puffery" when, in fact, they are the stars of the videos. Following the links verifies this. You have removed a lengthy section reporting sales figures in an NPOV manner which show that the subjects have produced top-sellers for 2 years, and been in the #2 spot for months. You have whittled down a lengthy and sourced article into a stub with "citation needed" tags. redacted Dekkappai (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I twice removed it claiming that Amazon didn't carry the CD, and that it was a clear Amazon Marketplace listing. I said this in the edit summary, and I said this above. Amazon.co.jp can trivially be reconfigured to be an English-language site.
    Hey, where's the reliable source describing them as top-sellers or stars? Remember, reliable sources are independent of the subject; sites selling videos of them aren't that by a long shot. Sourced articles are sourced to independent publications, not catalog after catalog after catalog after catalog.
    As for the rest, speculate about the bad faith of other users somewhere else. Preferably somewhere far, far away from Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Add to the above: You've now just removed mention of their debut video as a non-notable fact. Need I say more? Dekkappai (talk)
    cited source doesn't claim that this is her first film - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you mean this edit, where I was a tad focused on the puffy "directed by noted AV director" bit and stomped on the "this is their first video," which I restored here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Silence does not equal consent here. It only indicates that good faith, sourced edits are removed, and that pointing this fact out at the AfD is "redacted". Dekkappai (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon marketplace is not Amazon. It proves as much notability as being listed on eBay. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (that's policy). Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (that's policy too). Now how many times does this have to be repeated? yandman 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Amazon marketplace was not being used to prove notability. It was being used to verify release date and title. That has since been supported with another citation-- probably removed by now. If you could see the full article, you'd be able to determine that. Dekkappai (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the Sexual Kiss Records link is still in the article. The Amazon link's gone again, though, because it doesn't verify the release date and title. It's a not-closely-regulated user posting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, a "Man" who is so squeamish has to "redact" others comments cannot be replied to. Have a nice day :) Dekkappai (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so let's forget Amazon. So which "multiple reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are being used to indicate notability? Asahi Shimbun? Mainichi Shimbun? Looking at this and past versions of the article, I can't see any. yandman 08:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly notable. We shouldn't discriminate against other cultures. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, Cerejota, while I don't personally agree with CoM's statement above, there is nothing uncivil about it. Your unfriendly "retract your statement" on the other hand could hardly be interpreted as civil. I realize that English is not your native tongue, but please assume good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt, instead of mistakenly assuming ill will. An apology to CoM would be nice. --DAJF (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said I descriminated against other cultures, that is uncivil. I am tired of these allegations of racism and xenophobia, in particular because most of my editing in wikipedia is precisely WP:BIAS work. If you fail to see it, its okay, but his statement was uncivil in the extreme under the circumstances, and asking him to retract it is not uncivil.--Cerejota (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, where are the sources, if this is clearly notable? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, marginally—evidence suggests notability, although not conclusively. (Oh, and I was going to throw in a few personal attacks for good measure, but I see that AMIB is redacting those, so I guess I won't.) Everyking (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which evidence? What sort of sources does it suggest? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    redacted, redacted, redacted Everyking (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, we can't source the article to sarcasm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - These girls are clearly notable, and plenty of information has been found to support such claim. Much more info is found on Japanese sites, but even with just the English sites I am satisfied that this article is KEEP-worthy. The very fact that this has turned into such a lengthy discussion demonstrates that they are controversial; witch is another indication of their notability. After reading the discussion, it seems that the arguments to delete are supported by WP:IDon’tLikeIt and nothing else. Now, please play civil and don’t attack me. The above is my opinion, and I am entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours. Unionsoap (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some actual evidence that supports this "clear notability" in the form of links to non-trivial third-party websites in English or Japanese? As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, I have myself tried googling (in English and Japanese) without success, and Dekkappai appears to have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find reference sources without being able to dig up anything more than a handful of fansites. If you or anyone can actually offer evidence of notability, I will happily support keeping this article. --DAJF (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now as I see it this debate is going toward no consensus, keep in mind wikipedia is not a vote. Why is it when I respond to your concerns they go completely ignored. For those asking for a delete based on lack of notable sources i gave two sources, www.coremagazine.co.jp is reliable and non trivial so is http://www.km-produce.com/ I am not sure about av channel and xcity perhaps someone with more knowledge in this field could help us. Secondly I do not want to be accused of canvassing again but I am asking for permission to ask others familiar with Japanese Gravure idols for their input. Also AMIB, can you please expand why sources suck? Please cite wikipedia policy while your at it as Dekkappai cited a lot of sources. I see no policy that say inclusionist are the only ones that have to cite sources to prove a point. So if you could please go one by one and cite why every citation is no good that would help.
Sure. They are not sources independent of the subject. They are sources with a blatant, undisguised interest in selling you something. And not a one of these sources is commentary. All of them are simply of the form "Beautiful Sexy Twins! - Smarch 2007 - Directed by [some guy] - Watch these sexy twins fulfill your every fantasy!" That's not commentary, that's ad copy.
Core Magazine might be a reliable source. I'm skeptical, but Dekkappai could probably tell me more. Unfortunately, Core Magazine isn't being used to source any factual claims other than they appeared in Core Magazine.
I am most frustrated because this might be able to be a good article. But the defense of it is "Well, this is good enough and people are just discriminating against the topic because they don't like it." (See UnionSoap's comment above.) DreamFocus and Dekkappai have made the case that the specialist blurs into the mainstream, that there's something to say even about a pair of twins who make specialist porn. Nobody's put their money where their mouth is yet and offered any sources that say something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which brings me to my point. Notability is not the issue. The article needs to be revised by someone who speaks Japanese and can find sources in Japanese as they clearly exist. Valoem talk 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New info www.dmm.co.jp is also a reliable source. It has been cited in other gravure idols. See Fuko.

Also has anyone here compared the quality of this article to other articles about gravure idols? See Category:Japanese gravure idols. This article is written in the high quality and has the table showing a list of films. I see plenty of citations. If someone could find a few DVD reviews that could help. Valoem talk 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source for simple statements of fact about their products. It doesn't in any way establish notability; we're not mirroring DMM's catalog on this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to object to the characterization of my work on the article as "a considerable amount of time." I did not start this article. I regularly spend, at bare minimum, a week researching even the most notable subjects in this field before starting work on an article, and at least another week writing it before putting it on Wikipedia. On this article I spent less than a day total, and came up with THIS. That work was blanked twice within minutes of its posting, and after restoration it was quickly whittled away and bastardized (e.g., "starring" replaced with "appearing" in videos which contain their names in the title), I came to the conclusion that constructive work on this subect is being prevented, and continuing it would be a waste of time and effort, so I stopped work on it. At least one other editor who has experience in this field came to the same conclusion. From what I found in that very short search time, however, and from what I know of similar subjects, Airi & Meiri are highly likely to have had mainstream coverage, magazine, TV interviews, etc. in Japan. (Also, The Australian Journal of Media & Culture writes, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred... there are women actors from pornographic videos who move into daytime television"[2] note this is in reference to those who go on to appear as regulars or have their own daytime shows, not just the occasional interview or article which establishes "notability".) We are here to establish notability, not write a Feature Article, and I firmly believe that what I found, and what is being removed from the article, establishes notability. Dekkappai (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article MARKEDLY IMPROVED since this discussion began, as both meeting the criteria of WP:PORNBIO and in curbing the enWiki's anglo-centric systemic bias. Let's WP:AGF folks, as using the relevent guidelines, it NOW passes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consider WP:LARD improvement?--Cerejota (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no puffery (LARD) now in the article, I will politely disregard your question as being a non-argument. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single reliable source that establishes notability in the entire article, as it stands today or in any previous version. WP:PORNBIO and WP:MUSIC require multiple sources. Could you please point me at what sources you consider establish notability? I am perhaps overlooking them. The article is a tub of lard as it stands.-- Cerejota (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First you were chiding me and calling something puffery (LARD) when that puffery no longer existed, so I responded. Now you, as a non-speaker/reader of Japanese are demanding from me, another non-speaker/reader of Japanese, to provide something that you would not be able to identify any more than I. And for myself (and you really might try do the same), I am assuming from what I have read that good faith efforts are being made to address your concerns. And here again, you insist on calling something puffery (LARD) when there is no longer any such in the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is still puffery. None of the sources added establish notability, only existence, and they where added after the AfD, in an attempt to lard or puff the article. I do agree that there are good faith efforts, the issue is that effort != results. I am not for wiping our asses with WP:NOTE simply because some wikipedians worked hard on it. You !vote is pure WP:EFFORT. That said, ignore my direct questions, and tell me if any source establishes notability.--Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I will ignore is your very poor attitude. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Preceding user was temporarily blocked for incivility in this comment. — Gwalla | Talk 16:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took the, ah, extreme measure of asking a native-Japanese speaker about the twins. He immediately knew who they were, knowing right away that Meiri had retired. Took him only a few minutes to add an audio interview, which has been added to external links. Dekkappai (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an "interview" - it was the self-introduction that is standard at the beginning of all idol DVDs. I've removed the link, as it is both a copyvio and inappropriate as per WP:EL. If you can dig up a non-trivial third-party interview that featured on radio or TV, then I'll be more convinced. --DAJF (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, DAJF. I couldn't listen to it here. I took the additional extreme measure of assuming good faith. But of course it was removed as copyvio. How silly of me to forget that external sites must now share Wikipedia's refusal to recognize "fair use"! My bad. And no, I've long given up work on this article myself. It's become clear that the subject is being held to a higher standard than mere "notability". Dekkappai (talk)
We should probably hasten to add that as the subjects of interview in that DVD, they were merely appearing in it, not starring in it, as "starring" would constitute "puffery". Dekkappai (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't "merely appearing in it". It was a self-made introductory piece, which is why it has no value in this wikipedia article, and does not confirm notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since I am weakly convinced that these girls are weakly notable. I mean, we have porn in this encyclopedia, might as well have this porn too. There's sources there, and not all of them in Japanese. I quote: "A long-awaited No.2 of the best version of 「super digital mosaic」 that clearly shows hair! anus! and in and out motions! is now here!" Drmies (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What source is that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have known about the twins for years and about their prominence in Japan. It can be difficult to establish "notability" (which has to always be put in quotes since it has no actual meaning in the real world) for subjects from other cultures and in unconventional fields. I worked on this article for a while but an ultramontanist philosophy has resulted in the complete removal of all that was added (Check the History). Like Dekkappai, I have also stopped working on the article. Now it is my OPINION that those who might weigh in on this AfD should be treated as adults. That is, they should be allowed to see all the work (good or bad in someone else's OPINION) and get to decide for themselves whether the sources used are "reliable" (another one of those words). For anyone to remove material because it isn't proper (in their OPINION) is treating people like children who must be protected from "wrong" views. You know, I think Wikipedia can survive having "bad sources" (and even evil ones which [gasp] might promote lesbian incest) around for the duration of an AfD. If those others, properly informed, decide, in their OPINION, that the sources are "weally, weally" bad, then so be it, delete. Und so, on the matter of "notability" and "reliability", it is my OPINION (and all the other views expressed here by everyone, whether they know it or not, are also just that, OPINIONS) that the subjects are "notable" and have been shown so by "reliable" sources. Because ... I think (that means it's my OPINION) that commercial sources, blogs, and fansites can be relied upon for useful information when used with caution. Some fansites provide the most complete and accurate information on the web in their subject areas (even better than Wikipedia!!!). And I believe that we are all intelligent enough to use such sites with caution (actually I am and you probably aren't but I'm supposed to be nice here). Further, one would have to be preternaturally naive not to realize that all those "reliable" mainstream sources that are always being clamoured for are also commercial enterprises and that commercial considerations (not to mention political and cultural biases) DO influence their content. And having several people check on facts when they all have the same bias does not give us TRUTH or (wait for it..) "reliability". Once again this is my OPINION, so now, if you wish, you can all flail away stating your own OPINIONS (that really gets annoying after a while, doesn't it?). Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to leave the article alone at AFD when I can improve it. Removing puffy, promotional statements and bad or inapplicable sources is improving it, and I'd do that whether or not it was at AFD. That people have mistaken these promotional statements repeated more or less verbatim as claims of notability and these various fansites and sales catalogs as reliable sources is unfortunate.
    This grandstanding of "I can improve this article, but I'm not going to in protest of notability in general and this AFD in particular" is tiresome. Improve the article with good sources and this all goes away. In the meantime, we don't have articles sourced to personal fansites (be they about lesbian incest porn, video games, or decorative topiary) or sales catalogs. If you are withdrawing in protest, then withdraw in protest and leave everyone else be.
    As for the repeated implication that someone is offended by the subject of this article, enough. The sources are bad, good ones would change minds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A story. Let's say someone makes Al Merry. He's a TV fisherman. The article lists the various fishing videos he's been in (sourced to a fishing video sales catalog), one time he appeared as a guest on a noted fishing show (sourced to the fishing show network's site), and describes his first fishing video (sourced to another fishing video sales catalog), as well as some claims about how he got into fishing (sourced to a fishing sales catalog that doesn't support half of these claims). At different points, an Amazon.com Marketplace link and a copyvio mp3 of an interview from the introduction were used as sources, but these were later removed. Someone said their friend has heard of Al Merry.
    Now. If I call that out as badly sourced, would you think I'm offended by fish? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr/Miss/Mrs Cerejota - Yes, that's what I'm saying about all of you - get the point?
Mr/Miss/Mrs Black - if you want to improve the article, add to it - when you remove material, you are doing what I said, elevating your OPINION above others. Remember, there are no rules in Wikipedia, only guidelines, those guidelines have to be interpreted and when you do that, you are giving your OPINION. Even the US Supreme Court doesn't pretend to omniscience - they give OPINIONS. Your are entitled to your OPINION but it is no better than anyone else's (and, of course, by definition, less than mine, whoever the "me" might be) but let others make their decisions on an AfD based on all the information even if it comes from sources that, in your OPINION, are less than ideal. Just bite your tongue when you feel these urges and assume others are smart enough to see through bad sources. After all, if the article really is bad, everyone will see that and it will get deleted in afew days. Unless, of course, t h e r e ' s a c o n s p i r a c y . . . . . (Lighten up, Dude, doesn't anyone around here ever smile?)
Mr/Miss/Mrs Black #2 - I'm not sure where you see the repeated implications of people being offended by the article, if one [gasp] can set off a whole fish story then you seriously need to invest in a sense of humour (no offense intended). And you still don't seem to have gotten my point - just because you say a source is bad doesn't mean it is - that's just your OPINION. It really doesn't matter how certain you are - (repeat after me) it's just your OPINION. So lets play nice and let others have their OPINIONS (mine, of course, always being superior to yours) :) Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. "there are no rules in Wikipedia, only guidelines" : this would be a good place to start reading. "Your are entitled to your OPINION but it is no better than anyone else's" : this is pretty clear on that subject. Anyway, there being or not "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" listed at the end of the article is hardly a very subjective judgement. yandman 07:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your useful links, try reading them - "you can "ignore all rules": any policy, guideline, or other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". I think I'm improving and I have given my rationale above for the necessity of sometimes ignoring the "rules" on "reliability". Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two points, neither of them serious.
One, dude, A MAN In Black. My gender is pretty clearly indicated, c'mon.
Yes, but I use a girl's name - am I? Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two, you found me out. I'm part of a neokabbalistic society devoted to maintaining the number of articles with four Is in the name. Keep it under your hat, though, okay? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are these notable references? Does everyone agree they meet notable requirements now? There is now a reference link showing their appearance in Core Magazine, which appears to be a major publication. Does anyone still doubt they are notable based on that and other references added? I see most of the conversation seems to be about other things now, so lets focus on ending the AFD, if people agree all the references added within the past few days make it notable. Dream Focus 11:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Core Magazine is not actually a magazine; it's the publisher of a number of niche-market soft porn magazines. But in answer to your question, no, I don't agree that notability has been demonstrated yet, as not one single non-trivial third-party reference source has been forthcoming from any of the editors that have spouted on about how well known these twins supposedly are in Japan. I don't expect a Mainichi Shimbun in-depth interview about them, but not even a mention in Sponichi or any of the other tabloids or gossip magazines? No mention on late-night adult-oriented TV shows? Nothing. Which really shows how minor and off the radar screen they are/were in Japan. It is disappointing to see editors being duped into believing that a large number of truly minor reference sources somehow adds up to notability. Right from the start, the focus of this AfD has been on the lack of notability of the subject of this article, but despite all the huffing and puffing, no one has been able to actually provide any evidence of notability other than by repeatedly insisting that they are "clearly notable" or by using all-caps. --DAJF (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of puffery but nothing indicating that the duo have been analysed by independant, reliable third-party source, required by WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't consider Core Magazine to be notable then? They publish a lot of notable manga/hentai series. http://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?id=38 has a list. Dream Focus 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Core Magazine isn't a magazine. It's a publisher of magazines. (See here, and here.) What you have there is a company that sells pornographic magazines listing the appearances of a particular pornographic model in one of their magazines. To put it in terms of American porn, you've cited Hustler.com's back-issue listing to find out that someone has appeared in a few issues of Hustler Asian Fever.
I'm disappointed in myself for not discovering this sooner. (edit conflict) And DJAF just pointed this out, better, above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Wikipedia:Notability, you will see that significant coverage is a requirement. None of these links mention more than the names "Airi & Meiri" and the titles of some of their DVD releases. We can't even reliably verify that they are indeed twins. I know that someone said on the article's talk page that it shouldn't be necessary to provide a reference source for something that appears obvious, but that is not how things work on Wikipedia for biographies of living persons. --DAJF (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are going to emphysize significant coverage you should put the definition from the policy page which says "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. I do feel that this is more than trivial. They seem to have been involved with a few high budget producions. See [3]. I can not see this video from where I am so if some else can confirm or deny this that would be helpful. Valoem talk 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real shame you aren't able to see the video clip you posted a link to. I'm afraid to inform you that it is an embarrassingly low-budget YouTube-style effort. --DAJF (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i there are a lot of other links I can't see any of them from where I am. Are these some kind of show? What is the audience level? If anyone could find an interview that would be helpful as well. Valoem talk 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if there was an article that refered to someone as a man, but you couldn't find in any reviews that his gender was specifically mentioned, would that make you unable to state the obvious? Is there any reasonable doubt that they are twins, as opposed to two people that aren't twins but just happen to have the same height, age, and face, who by some strange random coincidence met up one day and decided to make porn together? If there was an article for a cartoon, but you couldn't find a single review that mentioned it as such, would you not be able to call it that, despite people able to look at it and obviously tell that? There is no possible reason to need a citation for every single fact. Anyway, the significant coverage is rather vague, since significant isn't clearly defined, it just a matter of opinion. Many here believe the coverage of them out there is signifant enough now, while others want more. All porn magazines have information about the girl/girls on the cover, so we have only to prove these magazines are notable for that to count. Is there any way to find out what the sales figures are? Or if a porn magazine has been in print for years, then it should be notable, since publishing companies wouldn't keep putting it out if it wasn't making money. Dream Focus 13:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I couldn't find a single reliable source that referred to his gender, I might suspect that my article subject isn't notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A couple points for the closing admin: 1: We are supposed to believe here that repeated edits such as THIS, by the nominator, are purely in the interest of improving the article. (That English is not his/her native language may be an explanation, but it's not an excuse.) 2: The blanked version is filled with sourcing. No, it's not Julius Caesar-level sourcing, but-- reality check here-- this is an article on a couple of porn actresses, not major historical figures. That sourcing shows evidence of nearly a dozen magazine appearances, starring videos, live performances, online interviews, etc. This shows notability. 3: In looking through Wiki articles on subjects in US pop-culture, I've come across dozens which are totally unsourced. When I've asked about this odd difference between articles on Japanese and US pop-subjects, I've been told not to worry about the US one's lack of sourcing "Everyone knows its' notable, so no one would try to delete it." Think about that a bit: I mention Airi & Meiri to a native Japanese speaker and he immediately knows who they are, even knowing details of their career. Another editor with interest in the area has known them for years. (I admit I'd never heard of them myself, but I'm an old guy from the Naomi Tani generation-- hard for me to keep up with all the new stuff :) The point is, we accept that "everyone" knows US pop subjects, but are skeptical to the point of throwing out plenty of lesser-but-real sourcing-- apparently requiring university publication standards-- for a couple of porn actresses from a culture/country half a world away, and anyone with personal knowledge of the subjects is dismissed as "I like it / I know it". Looks an awful lot like a recipe for cultural myopia/bias at Wikipedia to me. Dekkappai (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekkappai, you've mentioned this twice now, so I feel it necessary to pick you up on it. This Japanese native speaker you asked is not just some average Japanese guy off the street, but User:Hotaka, who, according to his user page, is employed in or closely connected with the Japanese underground film industry. It is therefore not at all suprising that he had heard of the twins. The second point I would like to pick you up on are these "online interviews" you mention. Could we have a link please? This is not the MP3 link that you added earlier is it? If so, that was not an interview, but a self-made self-promotional piece urging fans to buy their new CD. You did eventually get a chance to listen to it, I presume? --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's involved in the "underground" read: pink film industry, not AV, which are, basically very different things, though there is some overlap between the two. (In other words, the editor may have some knowledge of the topic-- does that ban him from comment on the topic in Wikipedia's eyes?) The interview? No, I didn't get a chance to listen to it. I assumed it was a good interview, and then I assumed good faith on your part that it was an AV interview. I thought I made that clear, haven't brought it up again, and don't why you're asking about that again. Dekkappai (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... See, the heavy censorship makes it hard to keep track of what information is available, and what has been "redacted". Here's what my recent mention of interview was in reference to: "Airi and Meiri were the featured guests at XCity's night chat / talk show "Mihiro's Club". Eight downloadable videos of the appearance were offered to members of the site."Mihiro's Club Report: Vol.3" (in Japanese). Mihiro's Club. Retrieved 2009-03-09. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" This[4] probably now missing citation makes reference to an exclusive contract with KMP. I don't know KMP's relationship with XCity, but it's an interview/talk show either way-- possibly third party. Dekkappai (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update are first I found a bunch of links here [5] if someone could look at those link that would be helpful I can not from work. Second a search of them indivdually has brought vast new resources has anyone tried this yet? I believe meiri full name is Hamutal Meiri. Here [6] Valoem talk 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, Valoem, but no, I'm afraid Hamutal Meiri is quite a different person from our Meiri. :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd also like to address this, "We're not biased, some of our best friends are 4'10" Japanese twin porn stars," complaint. This rings hollow when the nominator blanked out an extensive rewrite/re-sourcing twice within minutes of its posting-- as he had done to previous attempts to work on the article-- and yet this has not been condemned by the Delete !voters-- as far as I've seen-- I'm not following this discussion closely). This also casts strong doubts, in my mind, of the subsequent piece-meal stubbing-down and de-sourcing of that revision. It further makes the "Why don't you work on it?" challenges to appear more like "Whaddaya gonna do about it?" taunts from schoolyard bullies than actual appeals to work on the article, because work on the article has been systematically prevented. Dekkappai (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may help to follow the discussion more closely before condemning everyone who disagrees with you as a schoolyard bully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks to heavy redaction, this AfD is almost impossible to follow. Entire arguments seem to have vanished into the ether. Looking back in the page history shows that some of the parts that were removed do not, on the face of it, appear to be offensive. Also, what is this doing on the Bands & Musicians AfD subpage? — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, there's been a very heavy hand at work in removing content from both the article and the discussion. I don't know what's still left at the article, but at one point it mentioned that this pair recorded J-pop music, had a hit single, and performed live... Dekkappai (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content was rightly removed as unsourced WP:PUFFERY. Their sole CD single was released on a minor independent label and does not appear to have been a hit anywhere other than on their fan blogs. --DAJF (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll have to check policy, but I'm inclined to cap off this AfD and relist it with a blank slate and a reminder to all parties to stay civil and avoid accusations of bad faith. — Gwalla | Talk 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They released a single on Sexual Kiss Records apparently. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if I may be permitted to repeat "puffery" here, they actually did more than record a single. THIS link, once at the article, is to a DVD containing a dance to their original song-- indeed, a single. THIS link, presumably removed, lists three songs (the single recording not included) on their Double Fantasia. THIS link, removed, banned and salted, backs up that title, release date and the three songs. THIS mentions a performance of the new song by the "currently much-talked about twin unit" Airi & Meiri. THIS news item mentions that the duo's music was an influence on a Tokyo Broadcasting System anime. Again, this information was available at the article when I last worked on it. It was blanked along with much more, and, apparently, it's all been removed as "puffery". Dekkappai (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This and this are the same single, I think the evidence suggests that this is not primarily about their music or dancing, this has a dozen idols and A&M are not headlining, and this is a blog's speculation that a TBC anime ripped off A&M because they noticed that the chord progression was similar.
Like I said. They released a single. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REDACTED!!! Dekkappai (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: "Puffery". We've all heard a thousand times that MIB and DAJF believe the article was rife with puffery-- was before the article was de-sourced, and stubbed. So why didn't they just mark it as such, and leave it for others to make their own opinions? Why, in fact, did they REMOVE this information from the article, and THEN mark the article as filled with "Puffery?" DAJF didn't even know which interview I was referring to above because it had been removed. I had forgotten for a moment what is going on here, and assumed everyone could still see it right at the article. Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everybody here needs to tone down the snark immediately, because it is not helping. I would encourage everyone to read WP:CIVIL, paying particular attention to the parts on judgmental tone and taunting and baiting. The next comment to insult, belittle, accuse, malign, needle, or ascribe sinister or malicious motives to another editor, or is otherwise disruptive, will get a temp block. This goes for everyone. Do not assume that I am kidding. Play nice.

Some perspective may be in order here. This is a discussion of the merits of an article on a pair of porn model/actresses. Having this article around for a little longer will not ruin Wikipedia's reputation (it's just a drop in the bucket); conversely, if it's deleted, the Internet will not come crashing down around our ears. There is no reason for anyone to get this worked up. More dispassionate debate, less flaming, please. — Gwalla | Talk 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have secondary sources that establish notability been found? As per WP:PORNBIO, WP:MUSIC, and/or WP:NOTE? If not, I do not understand why there is a discussion. As many have said, WP:LARDing with unreliable, or primary sources (or "sourcetards") only proves this article is not hoax, something no one has argued. We need sources that establish notability. I have scourged and scourged and scourged and scourged the interwebs and found nothing. So have, I presume, others. I really want to change my !vote, as we all know that WE CAN'T SPELL TWINCEST WITHOUT WINCEST! but am afraid their is no notability under the criteria we have.--Cerejota (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Preceding user was temporarily blocked for incivility in this comment — Gwalla | Talk 16:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC) A misunderstanding around the meaning of "sourcetard", I have refactored, and have been quickly unblocked.--Cerejota (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see some heated commentary on both sides and some tomfoolery and pointy activity happening on the article itself. This AFD is a fucking mess. Keep this on the basis that this AFD was completely poisoned, there is no deadline to improvement and AFD is not cleanup. The article needs cleanup, not deletion, despite being turned into WikiGaza. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now I just want to point out a few things Cerejota. What I am saying it not a personal attack but a review of your behavior in this AfD which I found to be inappropriate. First you should be thankful that you were not warned for some of things you did while this article was under review. I am not suggesting that you nominated the article in bad faith, but certain things you did point to extreme bias against this article which is against WP Policy. You fabricated policies that were actually the opposite of the real policy in order to back your claim. You repeatly removed cite material bias on the false claim that English was the only citable source. Any editor that was unbias would have asked for a translation instead of a reverting to make the article look as unnotable as possible. Had you apologized for this behavior as an honest mistake then I would not have brought this up, one editor suggested that it was because English was not your first language, but based on your writing you seem very fluent and on par with any native speaker. You assumed bad faith against Dekkappai and repeatly warned him and reverted legitmate edits when he was trying to expand the article. Finally, you accused ChildofMidnight of personal attacks when he only disagreed with you. All of these things should be taken into account when reviewing this AfD. Valoem talk 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have totally misrepresented my views: I have no problem with Japanese language sources, and have said so repeatedly, in this AfD and in the talk page. I ask that you please retract this statement as it is false. Specifically I said: Sources in Japanese are okay as long as a translation is provided. I also said: These two are not being featured in the Japanese equivalents of Playboy or Penthhouse over even Hustler, which is what one would generally define as mainstream porn'. I think the building of strawmen and accusations of racism have gone overboard: do not misrepresent the view of editors.
I have a problem with using sources that do not establish notability to puff up the article and make it seem sourced. I have no bias against the article, and I would like you to tell me how asking for an AfD is against policy?--Cerejota (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Cerejota, remember that even AFD is not a WP:BATTLEFIELD Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Japanese language version of this article exists. However, article should be improved. Also, the article currently contains numerous references.WackoJackO 12:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(If the ja.wiki version is put up for deletion, someone can point out that en.wiki has a version...) yandman 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument doesn't work this way because we are basing it off the fact that Japanese are more aware of their culture and can find many more source on ja google than we can. Valoem talk 15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't checked, the Japanese article on Airi & Meiri has zero reference sources. --DAJF (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does indeed contain numerous references, but are you happy with the fact that not one single non-trivial third-party reference has been provided yet? --DAJF (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the lack of sourcing in the Japanese article-- Japanese Wiki articles are very poorly sourced in general. Check the inline sourcing on the Japanese article for Akira Kurosawa. A lengthy article with two cites to one source. And compare the English article Dick Dastardly. Not one reference or even external link, good, mediocre, or bad. I've come across countless articles like this on US pop-subjects at English Wiki and been told not to worry about the lack of sourcing, "Everybody knows they're notable. No one would try to delete them." Well... could this possibly be true of other languages/cultures? Could they have subjects "everybody" knows, and would not delete? For possible notability of Airi & Meiri beyond a Japan/US fan base, I decided to try checking Korean sites, and found several mentions of the duo, such as this one, describing Meiri's retirement, the duo's dance and original composition, etc. No, this is not an Oxford Press biography, but things like this, along with-- just that we can find-- numerous magazine appearances, a talk show/interview (this one), musical recordings, public appearances, top-selling DVDs two years in a row, #2 spot for months... These are public figures. Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference with Dick Dastardly is that he could trivially be merged to Wacky Races if someone bothered to fool with the article and couldn't find any sources. (Nevermind that five seconds of looking gave me this, with at least two or three decent sources in the first three pages.) This is a very roundabout way of making the very tired "Well what about X" argument, and as always the reason is "Because either nobody has closely scrutinized X or because it's dissimilar from this subject]]."
    As for the link you found in Korean, again, it's a brief entry in somebody's blog. Nobody's saying the twins don't exist, or that they don't have an audience. People are saying that there's so little coverage of them that we have no hope of writing a biography; we can't even confirm the simplest facts about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Man, the only reason I am citing all of these is because pretty much all the keeps have been without exception straight out of the examples sections of "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". That said, had Dick Dastarly showed up in "new pages" while I was on patrol, I would have CSD' it. Now I agree it should be merged and redirected to Wacky Races, however, that is not what we are discussing here.--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

  • merge and redirect to Incest between twins in a new section dedicated to porno on the topic. Since we have been unable (and boy have we tried, I mean there are at least three japanese speakers here, one with strong fluency) to find any third party reliable sources that establish enough notability for an article. However, there is the "core magazine" source that establishes that the line of work of these women is twincest porn. The notability threshhold for inclusion in an existing article is much lower than that for their own article, and it has the advantage that if sources emerge eventually the article can be recreated: It might enrich the existing article on the topic to have a view on people who engage in this highly specialist line of work. Yes, this is changing my !vote, but closing admin should consider me delete unless the cosensus moves in the direction of my proposal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Robin: "Holy twins Batman, this discussion is certainly heated!" Batman: "Yes Robin, that is a clear indication of notability. If these twins were not notable, nobody would care enough to make a comment." Robin: "You mean that by making a comment you are indicating that the subject is notable, even if you state the opposite?". Batman: "Yes, absolutely Robin. If the subject were not notable, no one would care enough to comment; therefore, Airi & Meiri are clearly notable, with the proof being in the length and verbosity of the discussion." Robin: "Gee Batman, you are most certainly correct." Unionsoap (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, WP:BATMAN is not an inclusion criteria. :D--Cerejota (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus--More than enough input here to close the debate. I think it's pretty clear that we won't reach consensus on this matter and AfD's busy enough without dragging it out.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airi_%26_meiri&oldid=1136114134"