Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miri Hanai

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miri Hanai[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. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an online directory. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PORNBIO is irrelevant here since she is not a porn actress. Even her Japanese Wiki page does not categorize her that way. She is a gravure idol, which is different. A brief search of Japanese news sites come up with the kind of coverage one expects of a well-known gravure idol: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Since it is hard to apply WP:NACTOR to gravure idols, it might be best to simply consider her in relation to WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- well, the coverage seems to be of tabloid variety, interviews, and publicity / promotion, as in:

"What kind of images can be seen?【Hanai Miki】 I am dancing at the stairs and shaking at the rodeo machine. The costumes are fascinating in the Showa style, and there are quite a lot of things such as high-leg transparent."
Hanai, who appeared in a nurse cosplay [uniform] at an event [to promote the DVD] that contains a lot of cosplay scenes, said, "There are cosplays and classic massage scenes this time. There is no overall story, but photographers improvise; I would like you to see my vivid figure to respond to it." Etc.

I don't believe that this is sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make an argument about WP:V, you need to argue that the sources themselves are not reliable. Picking what you in your personal opinion think are frivolous quotes is not an argument. (I can find quotes from the same articles that give pertinent information about her career, etc.) Some of these articles are from major news organizations in Japan such as Tokyo Sports, Sankei Sports, ASCII, Asahi Geino, Shukan Playboy, etc., which are used all over the English Wikipedia, especially in entertainment coverage. WP:V, again, does not ask us to judge whether the content fits some standard of "serious" coverage (a word it does not use; it also does not mention the word "tabloid"), precisely because it wants to avoid personal bias. The issue is whether the publication sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you have an argument that the above newspapers and magazines do not fit that, please present it. Michitaro (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not challenging the sources based on WP:V. I’m challenging them based on WP:N. As a gravure idol (pin-up model), the subject falls under WP:ENT, which leads to the same guidance as WP:NACTOR. I don’t see evidence of her meeting this notability guideline; she appears to be a run-of-the-mill model. The sources presented are interviews / WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY: Ms Hanai talking about herself and promoting her work. For the subject to be considered notable, we’d need independent, secondary coverage that provides assessment / critique of her career, not self-promotion. If such coverage exists, I’d be happy to review it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Whether she does porn or is an actress really isn't important. She still fails WP:ENT.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage of this gravure aetist as cited avove. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I addressed the sources above; they are:

Self-promotion,
Tabloids,
Passing mentions,
Etc.

None are suitable for establishing notability for a BLP; hence the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the absence. I've been off Wikipedia for three weeks. I still think there are significant faults in most of the nominator's claims, beginning of course with the gross error of not understanding who this person was before nominating for delete. (That was why I quickly accumulated some sources to show that WP:BEFORE had not been properly performed.) Most of the sources I listed are not self-promotion in that they are produced by reliable third party sources, and are not self-produced. I already made the argument that the claim of "tabloids" (and thus that these fail WP:V) is not supported. Also, all of the sources I provided have her name in the title and thus are not "passing mentions." However, the nominator has made one important point, which is that many of the sources available are close to what one could call interviews. There is an argument that can be made that the very fact someone is interviewed by a reliable third-party publication is a sign of notability, but as WP:INTERVIEW states these have to be treated with caution. I finally had time to do a bit more searching, and I must confess I found it hard to find articles on the net that are not in that category (with some exceptions, like [14]). I checked Web Oya, the database of the Oya Soichi Bunko, the primary scholarly database for popular magazines, and she has 138 articles listed, but about 130 of those are classified as gurabia or interviews. There are a few of articles not classified as either of those in well-known weekly magazines such as Flash (June 2009 and March 2003) and Friday (April 2006), but I cannot check those personally. Again, it is clear from the fact she has had 138 articles that she is a popular gravure idol, but I am not well versed enough in that world to judge whether she "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to the gurabia world. She thus still might be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER but I confess I don't know that world enough. That is why I still have not voted keep or delete. My initial participation in this AfD was, again, to correct some major errors on the part of the nominator. Michitaro (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2018 (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.