Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2017 February 15
2017 February 17 >

16 February 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christopher Duntsch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted per A7, but how is he not notable? There are over 20,000 results on google for his name, and he is the subject of major investigations and lawsuits. Every statement in the article was cited. Natureium (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • list at AfD I can't see the draft, but it's pretty clear he meets WP:N. Not at all sure we should have an article on him (it's going to be a really negative BLP so hard to maintain and he may be a NOTNEWS/BLP1E case), but that's not a speedy criteria (though looking at the deleting admin's page he is citing BLP1E to justify the A7). Hobit (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin comment Indeed Hoit, I felt this was WP:BLP1E situation here. While there is coverage about his trial, I don't see how this article may be written from a WP:NPOV (and in fact the article was tagged for A10 for being an attack page). Also, this might be a WP:NOTNEWS situation as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but neither of those things make it an A7. Given that he does meet WP:N in spades and A7 is a lower bar than WP:N, I'd really prefer/suggest you undelete and list at AfD (unless the article is _so_ bad that it needs to go as a BLP violation, but if that were the case, I assumed you'd have picked something other than A7). Hobit (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Just to be clear) I'd not be shocked at all if this got deleted at AfD per BLP1E, but that's not a single admin's call and speedy deletions are for obvious things. This isn't that. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be more than happy to do so. I'll undelete now and list at AfD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly not an A7 - the article cited numerous reliable sources entirely devoted to the subject. A7 is not about whether the subject satisfies standards of notability or BLP1E, those are issues for AfD. An accurate biography of someone known for committing crimes isn't an attack page either. Hut 8.5 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • pro forma overturn. BLP1E is not a suitable basis for an A7, as it is a criterion designed to identify people who are at least arguably notable but should not be covered in individual articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, open and shut BLP1E case, but that's not a speedy deletion criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn. BLP1E is not A7. It's not even BLP-speedy worthy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list at AFD. I think an argument could be made that this is indeed a BLP1E, but BLP1E isn't cause to speedy-delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hitomi Tanaka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) CSD:G4 - This article was apparently posted twice and deleted before. I have not seen the article and no one so far, but the admin who has set it up for immediate deletion, has seen it. The issue is that this is the same format as the deleted articles before. Here are the issues with that:

1) I have not seen the previous article. I don't know what it entailed. No one does except the admin who reported it for deletion and he has not shared it with us, so no one knows.

2) An article about the same person should look relatively the same. Her career and life are going to be the same, minus any developments since last deletion. Please think about this for a second and I would love to hear any arguments otherwise.

3) The arguments used against this article in its previous deletions were WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

4) Anyone could post a bad article on someone here in the same format as I did. It's very easy. a person or star should not be basically banned from wikipedia forever because a novice didn't know what they were doing, and that's what is happening here.

Reasons why she is WP:GNG:

1) Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. - She has appeared in 430+ films. More films than most actors on this website. She has her own photobook that I sourced. She has a non-porn dvd that I sourced. She has been featured in 2 different television programs, amongst others that I couldn't find an internet source for from TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!. Both are big television channels in Japan. I also provided sources from The Score Group, The New York Daily News and Playboy. This is not some girl off the street here.

2)'"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!, The Score Group, The New York Daily News and Playboy are reliable as is DMM, which does not allow user submitted content and comes straight from the companies.

3)"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. This was met.

4)'"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] Playboy, TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! are independent here. She's never even worked for playboy.

5)"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] She was in over 430+ movies. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is. She's been featured in tv, she has her own photobook, etc.

Reasons why she is WP:BIO:

1)'Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration She won the AVN award which immediately meets this goal AND SHE DOESN'T EVEN LIVE OR PERFORM IN AMERICA! There is no question or doubt on this one.

2) Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. She is one of the first Japanese porn actresses to make it in the West. Marcia Hase is the only other one I can really think of. If someone else can give me some names, I'd love to hear it. She won an AVN award, making her possibly one of the first Japanese to do so. She is one of the true first crossover stars and is really famous for her genre of busty girls. If she is not notable, no one is.

3)Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.' I sourced two TV appearances which were on TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! and her Japanese page has more(https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitomi_(AV%E5%A5%B3%E5%84%AA)#.E5.87.BA.E6.BC.94). She has her own photobook which was sourced in the article and she was involved with the AVN awards.

I also do feel there is a bias towards this article. I've seen much worse stuff with people with a lot less notability get published on here without issue. The key issue appears to be that the user who was responsible for getting it deleted last time, wants to ensure it stays deleted.

Even if you disagree with 1 of my points, overall, I do not see how this fails the test for WP:BIO and WP:GNG, especially for porn, which the main stream media in America does not cover and can't cover due to its mature content. The only way a pornstar is getting any coverage in America is if they aren't doing porn, have died or have had an incident....not for their actual work. It is almost impossible for a porn star to get on this site with the current guidelines in place, and the rules on here are very towards America, not Japan, where porn is run completely differently. Hitomi has clearly passed this test and I don't think whatever some random guy did on her page before should uphold forever. ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't understand our notability guide. Compare the quality and nature of the sources with those for a guinely notable person like Winston Churchill and you will see a difference. This has not yet been deleted so this is premature but it's going to be deleted and good riddance. Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why was there a "good riddance" here? Is this because of the subject matter? That's already impartial and that's not what wikipedia is about.
"Compare the quality and nature of the sources with those for a guinely notable person like Winston Churchill and you will see a difference." When was the last time any mainstream non-porn source has covered porn? I know I've never seen it aside from the The Howard Stern Show. It's not due to a lack of interest, as porn sites are some of themost popular sites in the world. Pornhub alone is even beating out Apple Inc., The New York Times, BBC, CNN and others on websites hits and is the 51st most popular website in the world, but yet no coverage. That's not a good argument to make here. She still has appeared on TV Tokyo, SKY PerfecTV!, The New York Daily News and AskMen, all mainstream sources, along with 430+ videos about her(find me some actors who are in that many) and she's had her own photobook - that's right, she was important enough that someone made a book about her.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD- The CSD has been declined and I think an AfD is needed. This is also rather premature as the article as not been deleted. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_February_16&oldid=1082508182"