Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimika Ichijō

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Kimika Ichijō

Kimika Ichijō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No real assertion of notability. Claimed awards are given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and therefore fail the well-known/significant test. Moreover, the "mature actress"/MILF category by consensus general fails that standard, regardless of the awardgiver; while the other award is so lacking in significance that there appears to be no RS documentation of the award's selection criteria, even in the native-language sources which document its mere existence. No biographical content. No reliable sourcing beyond databases; other source is promotional award announcement. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable porn actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• delete source it or lose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, I just added that she's a jpop singer too. --Gstree (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

what are the sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Please see the article again, I just updated the reference. --Gstree (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- no notability established nor found. Specific the above discussion on being a pop singer, the band in question is non notable and the citation is to the band's web site:

• Ichijō is part of the jpop band Sexy-J.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have pointed this out to the nominator several times, but the nominator's description of the award is wrong. The nominator has offered no evidence that the award is as he or she describes. As is described in this major news source [1], it is an award that covers nearly 10,000 programs that were carried on SkyPerfecTV. SkyPerfecTV is the main satellite broadcaster in Japan and it carries hundreds of channels which are operated by other companies (including Fox, BBC, etc.). The award does not cover "its own programming" but merely programs that the channels programmed. It would be the equivalent of DirecTV or Sky sponsoring an award for programs broadcast on HBO, AMC, or the BBC. I have no opinion yet on this individual actress, but I would ask the nominator to stop mischaracterizing the award or at least offer proof that my evidence is incorrect. Michitaro (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: He's talking to you. --Gstree (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gstree, you know I responded to this question in another AFD; an editor is under no obligation to reply to the same question, over and over, if it's posted in multiple places. The intent of such overposting is usually to harass, and pinging demands to respond again and again is just further harassment. Saying that SkyPerfect isn't promoting the programming and channels it charges viewers to access because it only sells them, and didn;t produce them, is like saying Pathmark's "cheese of the month" isn't promotional because the grocer didn;t milk thew cows itself. It's an exceptionally foolish argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 6 March 2017 (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.