Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachi Hamano filmography

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Hamano filmography[edit]

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

A collection of non-notable titles. The article has been deprodded with the rationale that this was a filmography for a noted female director of pink films. However, I do not believe this is a valid reason to keep this article. For example, I randomly searched for Roman Polanski filmography and was directed to a section in the main Polanski article. All the movies listed are blue-linked.

I thus believe WP:NOTCATALOG applies, and the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was me who deprodded it -- not because I thought it should be retained, but because I wasn't convinced by the reason given for deletion and I thought there could be reasonable objection to deletion. This had/has ambitions of being rather more than some random list. WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't obviously apply: if Hamano is indeed notable (and there's not yet any proposal to delete the article about her), then I suppose her oeuvre has some notability. And if it does, then listing it doesn't seem unreasonable or inappropriate. I'd rush to agree that Polanski's output is greatly more notable (in either a normal sense or in Wikipedia's slightly odd sense), but the fact that a notable subject is dealt with in one section of an article is not a valid reason why a less notable subject should not be given its own article, especially when, as here, it requires some bulk. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sachi Hamano is quite well known for having directed about 300+ adult films. All of these wouldn't fit in the same article, so a separate article per WP:SPLIT is justified. While I agree with WP:NOTCATALOG, we do keep a list of all movies by famous directors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942 could you please indicate the consensus / guidance where the full listing of (non notable) titles would be encouraged? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants since last relist and contrasting views of two participants/voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect I belive those are the standard op procedures for porn lists. We don't need a complete and total list of all 300+ smut reels directed by her. #NotPornipedia L3X1 (distant write) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect -- Virtually none of these "films" are notable in any way, if any are, they can be covered in the main article. Montanabw^(talk) 08:12, 16 April 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.