Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shoko Goto

Not notable. Would not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, 80,000 g hits xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn —Khoikhoi 03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—However did you determine that she does not meet the "Japanese equivalent"? My command of the Japanese language is hardly sufficient for me to verify. Williamborg (Bill) 04:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No notable mainstream work in Japan, no notable awards, no notable magazine appearance (unless Bachelor Magazine is a notable magazine and her feature was prominent, WP:PORN BIO says one needs to be Playmate of the month), small number of films (www.amazon.jp shows only 22 results in a DVD search her name[1]). --- Hong Qi Gong 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete—That's good enough research for me! Thanks Williamborg (Bill) 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable porn actress. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — nn Deon555^talk_Review 10:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable porn actress. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While it would be hard for a lot of JAV actresses to meet WP:PORN BIO as is, this one doesn't come close even if applied loosely. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - To me, that only reflects the fact that "a lot" of Japanese porn actresses are not notable. Japanese porn as an industry and a subject itself is definitely notable, but many individuals involved in it may not be. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 22 DVDs at as mainstream an outlet as Amazon is not notable? How many American adult models can claim 22 DVDs at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Waldenbooks combined? To apply the 100-film American test to models from other countries is to ensure a clear cultural bias at Wikipedia. To now make them pass tests not even American actor/models can pass is to blatantly attempt to censor Wikipedia of Japanese models. As I have stated before, if this model is not qualified for a stand-alone article, she certainly qualifies for a mention at a List of Japanese female porn stars. However, the nominating editor also nominated that list for deletion, and ensured its deletion by deceptive means. He first edited that extensive list of models who had no article (and probably did not need them), down to a list of only models who had articles and stated here that "This list really does not serve any purpose. That's what Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars." He is now systematically de-populating that category. This is an underhanded way to censor Wikipedia. Dekkappai 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know how many times I must tell you to assume good faith. All articles that get deleted are deleted through the AfD process. I do not delete the articles. Editors vote and discuss, and eventually an admin deletes the article if s/he deems it should be deleted. Non-notable porn actresses should not have articles on WP. It's a simple matter. This person, even in Japan, has starred in a very small number of non-notable porn movies, have received no awards, no notable magazine appearance, no mainstream work, etc etc. Not all porn actresses are notable, no matter what culture or what country they are from. WP should not act as a porn directory with an indiscriminate list of unknown porn actresses. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To make my vote clear: I do not believe every model/actress deserves her own article. That's what lists are for, and 22 DVDs at Amazon certainly qualifies for a listing at List of Japanese female porn stars. However, that extensive list of names mostly with no articles (and not qualifying for them, hence the need for the list) was deleted with a statement implying a category (i.e. individual articles) would serve in its place. Now the category is being systematically depopulated. The options seem to be: 1) re-instate the list, and delete individual articles not meeting notability, 2) keep the individual articles, or 3) openly state Wikipedia is being censored of Japanese actress/model names. Dekkappai 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That list ultimately got deleted because the overwhelming majority of the names were unverified to even be real people. Contrast that to most other lists on WP, all or most of the entries on them link to articles, and those articles in turn verify the existence and notability of the persons or topics in question. However, this discussion is on the Shoko Goto article particularly, and no, 22 porn DVDs on the Japanese Amazon is most definitely not notable. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, HongQiGong, I'll assume good faith in this statement. You claim the list was deleted because the names were unverifiable, though no apparent effort was made at the time to verify a single name. You have just done the work necessary to verify Shoko Goto. I think you will agree that 22 DVDs at Amazon constitutes verification that the model actually exists, if not enough notability (by the American test) for an article? Now, if you will agree to help reinstate the list, giving Ms. Goto honorary first entry, I will agree not only to take up the work you started in verifying and weeding the list down, I will agree to help weed out the articles on actresses who do not merit stand-alone articles-- so long as they are (if verifiable, of course) allowed an entry on the list. I will also apologize for misinterpreting your actions as bad faith editing (i.e. nominating the list for deletion, claiming a category served its purpose, then depopulating the category, and claiming the list was unverfiable without making any effort, or asking for others to verify a single name). Deal? Dekkappai 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I honestly have no problem with that list if all of them can be verified to be real people. You'll notice that almost every other list on WP have entries that link to articles that exist. I have never seen a list on WP where most of the entries do not link to articles, and that do not provide some sources on the existence of the people or topics on the list. That was the major problem with the list. The article had existed for a good while, and still, there was no evidence provided that they were actual people! Anybody could have edited the article to insert a completely made-up and imaginary name! But no, I'm not interested in re-creating that list. However, I won't nominate it for deletion if the names on the list are verified to exist, either because those names link to articles, or because sources are inserted at the end of the list to verify their existence. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not asking you to help with the list, just to say that you won't nominate it for deletion, and will oppose its deletion so long as the names are all verified. If a particular name is not verifiable, we'll delete the name, but not the entire list. If this is what you're saying, then I change my vote on this particular article to Delete until notability is established. However, since verifiability of the subject has been established, I say Move Shoko Goto's name to a future, revised, verified and footnoted List of Japanese female porn stars, which I will work on later and model on other, long-standing WP lists. If you agree to this, I apologize for misinterpreting what appeared to me to be an attempt to simply ban all these names from WP both as articles and as entries on a list. Dekkappai 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed then, non notable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dekkappai. It is not realistic to expect a Japanese adult model to appear on Playboy, and if that is a criteria we need to refactor that right away to fit a better worldwide view. For what its worth, I've also listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan. RFerreira 07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree, but that's why I mentioned that she would not meet a Japanese equivalent of the test. She may not have been in Playboy (which by the way, has a Japanese edition in Japan), she also does not have any notable Japanese magazine appearance. She does not have anything equivalent to that of being a Playmate of the Month. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the show of support, RFerreira & the below, I was beginning to think I was alone on this. My point is, if she doesn't deserve her own article, she certainly belongs on a list of Japanese porn stars (which was deleted.) I am currently going through the old list (mentioned above) which was deleted for 2 stated reasons: 1) the subject would be covered by a category (implying every model would need an individual article, yet the category is now being systematically depopulated), and 2) to quote, "the overwhelming majority of the names were unverified to even be real people"... I am in the process of just the first pass of verification, through the simplest of Amazon searches, and have so far come across only 2 or 3 questionable names out of (I'm guestimating) about 100 names searched so far. So, obviously, no attempt or request was made for verification. I see the same thing here-- "She may not have been in Playboy"... etc. Shoko Goto has been major presence in this field for over a year. It would not be at all surprising if she has over 100 appearances (again, the proposed American test) to her credit. The problem (and the language/culture creates that problem) is verifying that she has made enough appearances to be considered notable. Amazon is a mainstream source, and this model has 22 DVDs there. When I was in Japan, I know there were publications with names like "AV Actress," etc. which could be used as sources. Unfortunately I am not there now, or I would be happy to check these publications to verify claims of notability. Perhaps there is an editor in the country who can help with this? This Amazon search is useful, but shows only the tip of a very large iceberg. It will clear as notable only the most extremely mistaken cases for deletion of currently active actresses. Amazon shows only DVDs (and to a lesser degree VHS) that are curently in print. In verifying the list, I have come across several major stars from 20 years ago, stars who certainly made over 100 appearances, who today have only a paltry representation at Amazon, because those videos are now out of print. For example, even Tani Naomi, who is mentioned even in mainstream discussions of Japanese cinema and culture, would fail the proposed test. So, by sticking to this proposed test, Wikipedia will, contrary to its stated goals, be more censored and less comprehensive in scope than even the mainstream, paper encyclopedias. Now, I am with HongQiGong in believing that we need notability for stand-alone articles, and verifiability for mention within articles (i.e., entry on the List). The standard for notability, however, cannot be the same for American subjects and for international subjects (particularly those in non-English-speaking countries), if Wikipedia is to claim to be making any attempt at avoiding cultural bias. Sorry if I ran on too much, but obviously this article is part of a much larger issue. If there is an area on Wikipedia for discussing this subject (that is, Japanese adult model/actresses), please point me there, as I would like to participate in it. Dekkappai 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Thanks for agreeing that notability needs to be established for these porn actresses to have articles dedicated to them. And no, we can't expect Japanese porn actresses, or even mainstream actors and actresses for that matter, to have notability through American media. Which is why I keep repeating, again and again, that some of these Japanese porn stars would not pass a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO. For example, has this person won notable awards in Japan? Has this person done notable mainstream work in Japan? Has this person made notable magazine appearances in Japan? If the answer to these questions is "no", then she's not notable. Simple comments like "she's notable, Google search returns XXX number of results and she's been in 22 DVDs" do not help. Porn videos do not reach the mainstream like mainstream movies do. And also, please note that invalidating WP:PORN BIO because it's only a proposal would subject these porn stars to WP:BIO, which they would more likely fail. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the proposed guideline is an actual guideline. --Golbez 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - In which case, she would most definitely fail WP:BIO. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and should be kept for expansion. bbx 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, Dekkappai in particular. Having 22 DVDs on amazon.co.jp and 236,000 hits on Google (Japanese) does indicate notability in my opinion. Our guidelines are failing us if they suggest otherwise. Yamaguchi先生 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Only 22 porn DVDs are hardly enough. And it's been determined that Google hits is not accurate in determining notability because of Google bombing. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:PORN BIO notes in the 100-film an exception for non-heterosexual materials. Also, I do not believe that any Japanese porn actors meet the 100-film requirement. Twenty-two sounds very high for a foreigner. Jecowa 08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't believe her work was in Gay pornography, so the exception would not apply here. And there are Japanese porn actresses that will meet the 100-film requirement. Probably not as many as American porn actresses, but that just reflects that Japanese porn actresses are usually not as notable as American porn actresses, even in Japan (relatively speaking, that is). --- Hong Qi Gong 14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - During my stay in Japan, I saw models just like the ones you are nominating for deletion appearing on TV shows, radio, in mainstream magazines, public autograph signings... They are far more notable in Japan than their American counterparts who may, or may not be more active in film, but who generally stick to the adult entertainment field. Personally, I can't think of the name of a single current American porn star. However I can name several Japanese ones I have seen in mainstream media. Again, applying the standards of one country onto another is a recipe for cultural bias. Dekkappai 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - In that case, the problem would be verifiability. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Jecowa 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The 100-film requirement in culturally bias. Jecowa 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how that would be culturally biased. But even not using that criteria, this person still has no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. I'm really failing to see how she could possibly be notable enough. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:21, 31 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.