Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyoko Ayana (2nd nomination)

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. The consensus is that the subject of this article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko Ayana[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. The first AfD in 2006 closed as Keep, but the arguments presented there are not convincing, suc as "Keep: a popular model" or "Amazon.jp lists 117 DVDs, 46 videos, and 10 books when her name is searched". WP:PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination received attention as a possible bad-faith nomination because it used English-language standards for a Japanese actress. The close specified that the Japanese sourcing was essential to the conclusion. I see no evidence in the nomination of Japanese sourcing being considered, or of WP:BEFORE B6, "Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede." Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One editor asserted bad faith and was reminded about WP:AGF. The alleged "Japanese sources" that resulted in the 2006 keep appear to be vendors (Moodyz and Amazon.jp), which are neither independent nor reliable. As for, WP:BEFORE B6, the ja.Wikipedia article's links are sites like Moodyz and AliceJapan. It appears to be as thinly sourced as the 2006 en.Wikipedia page. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerned by the claim that there were BLP problems, I looked at the talk page, and I saw nothing mentioned there. I looked at the edit history, and the nominator removed 10K of material, including references, but none of this material was removed as being unreliable. There seem to be a reasonable number of inline citations. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material removed previously was the filmography section -- an indiscriminate collection of nn titles. Such lists are explicitely discouraged by the project. See for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Ozawa filmography. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The key problem here is that this BLP has no reliable source coverage. The 10K of deleted material was a porn filmography table (considered fluff by the Porn Project) and the performer's career as sourced by the film database XCity. That content was largely condensed. As for the article's sources, the Wired article at the dead link does not even mention this performer.[1] Others are the defunct Jmate.com porn blog (not reliable) and many, many film database citations. The only claim of notability is associations with notable actors, filmmakers and studios, and notability is not inherited. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you gave up on discussing BLP problems. Sourcing in articles requires that the source be reliable for the statement it sources. I checked the article, and you've identified no BLP problems. Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP with un-substantiated claims and unreliable sources are huge BLP problems. This is basic knowledge when handling BLPs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines. Industry promoters claims about the people they are fronting should not be allowed to stand in for reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only plausible claim of notability is sourced to an unreliable porn blog. No strong claim per WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my comment above. No strong indication of reliable, significant coverage to pass GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the article are mostly commercial porn sites that market her videos, plus a dead link. Yes, she is a porn performer, but I see absolutely no evidence that she is a notable porn performer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 9 December 2017 (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.