Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maki Tomoda

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 delete. The consensus of this discussion is that the subject fails to meet PORNBIO. While she won an award, there is no agreement that the award is notable, or that other notability criteria are met. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Tomoda[edit]

Maki Tomoda (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)

The award is clearly not realistic. 11 directors invited to apply and 3 winners of best actress. Beyond that standard failure of PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article the award is issued by a regional paper. This doesn't seen to meet the significance criteria in my opinion. Otherwise, how would we distinguish between the Baftas or an award from the Surrey Operatic Society?? Also according to your source the documentary has a budget of: €150 (estimated)> That isn't a mainstream film and I don't agree that a film about a secret rendezvous with your best friends wife and a picture showing a half dressed woman is a mainstream film. Seems a bit straw clutching if you want my opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 08:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been my position that an award must be both "well-known" (within the specific field that it gives awards out in and/or in the region/country that it gives awards out in) and be in a "significant" award category (meaning that not all award categories from a particular award ceremony are considered major award categories). In this specific case here, we have a notable award given out by a newspaper in the specific genre of pink film (which is apparently not considered the same as Western pornography in Japan) and in an award category of "Best Actress", which is surely a major award category.
Also, we have in this specific instance an actress who has clearly had at least a few "significant roles" (not minor roles or bit parts) "in multiple notable films", which obviously each have their own Wikipedia articles. The fact that one might not like the content or the genre of some or all of those notable films is clearly irrelevant. Guy1890 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Pinky Ribbon" award fails the well-known/significant standard of PORNBIO. It is given by a non-notable regional periodical specializing in erotica. There is virtually no independent coverage of the award or the magazine. Jasper Sharp's Behind the Pink Curtain, which has been touted as a definitive scholarly work in related AFDs (rather exaggeratedly), includes only a passing mention of the award, and none of the awardgiver. The award article itself has no independent reliable sourcing. It's hard to see how the award even meets notability standards, let alone the more stringent PORNBIO requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unknown here, does not make it unknown there. And we can hope that Japanese Wikipedians come forward to offer translations of the many available non-English sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, given that the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on either the award or the magazine that gives it out, and mentions the award (assuming the native-language name cited in its en-wiki article) only in a handful of articles, I don't see how we can conclude it passes the well-known/significant test in the absence of reliably sourced evidence to that effect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: I note that Japan does not deal with or consider pornography the same way as is done in the U.S. While here it is generally seen and considered to be a "baser" industry, the adult industry is treated by their media there on a level much closer to that of what we would consider regular film stars. With respects to Spartaz, and as we are not judge the rest of the world by our somewhat narrow and conservative western standards, I would hope we gain input from Japanese Wikipedians better to offer insights as to how that industry is considered and treated in Japan, under their non-Western standards of propriety or lack. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails PORNBIO. No independent coverage/references per Davey2010. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2015 (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/Maki_Tomoda&oldid=1138047293"