Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (3rd nomination)
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 No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 04:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoko Goto[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Notability flunks current WP:BIO. What are her awards? Have her contributions been unique to Japanese porn besides being a girl with really big breasts? Is she featured in mainstream Japanese media? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. There were some convincing arguments for this to be kept in the last AfD, and we should observe that being notable in Japan is somewhat different from being notable in the US or Europe. It really needs citations to reliable sources though. There may be such citations in Japanese, but maybe not - I'm certainly not qualified to judge that!--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having rather reluctantly done something to preserve the Kent Derricott article and then getting the impression that I might been more effective than I'd feared, I was eager to wash the odor of wholesomeness out of my hair and thus moved along the list of Japan-related AfDs to an article on this person, who seems more attractive and is certainly more cushioned. My careful researches so far, of course carried out purely for encyclopedic and altruistic ends, lead me to suggest that she's often romanized as "Syoko Goto"; this might bring the occasional substantive ghit in addition to all the dross. No comment (yet) on her articleworthiness, a matter on which I don't think I'm (yet) qualified to judge. But a couple of notes: (i) She has an article in bat-smg:WP (bat-smg:Shoko_Goto); what language is this? (Baltic, perhaps, but what?) (ii) Particularly in view of en:WP's general discouragement of peacock terms, must external links really be noted as "(contains adult material)"? How about instead "(contains photographs of uncovered tits)"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here I've given my statements about the cultural bias already present in the imbalance between U.S. and Japanese subjects, and my feeling that using biased rules to further that imbalance is a disservice to Wikipedia. To those statements, I add that Ms. Goto is a very well-known and popular actress within the genre. I've added evidence of that to the article, and will do more later when I can. Dekkappai (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:BIO as an entertainer who Has been featured multiple times in mainstream media. This is most obviously apparent when you look at the availability of Goto's works at Amazon.co.jp, where she currently has 26 DVDs listed, and it looks like roughly half even feature her name in the title. Those same types of videos may not be classified as mainstream in the US, but, while this is the English language wikipedia, it is not necessarily the US-culture-and-morals-centric wikipedia. What may be mainstream in one country is not necessarily the same in another. Amazon, with a global reputation to uphold, would seem to be a good barometer of what is accepted/popular in each country. Neier (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not only is relying on Amazon (or any vendor) improper due to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, making any conclusions about the notability of the product that they sell based on Amazon's sale practices is blatant synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position that goes against WP:OR. Vinh1313 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, I am not using Amazon to establish notability of the article. Her 26 mainstream DVDs establish notability; and the fact that DVDs of her genre are so widely available in Japan (including Amazon, and any number of other vendors) points out that they are, in fact, mainstream; and not relegated to the back-alley shops like in the US. Trying to claim that she needs to have won awards, or be unique within the Japanese porn or AV industries, is ignoring the fact that she has been featured in many mainstream medias. Neier (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not only is relying on Amazon (or any vendor) improper due to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, making any conclusions about the notability of the product that they sell based on Amazon's sale practices is blatant synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position that goes against WP:OR. Vinh1313 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Editing mostly Chinese-related articles and in many cases having relied on sources that are in the Chinese language, I'm not insensitive to cultural bias on WP, and have helped save and translate articles in the past that would have appeared not notable if we relied only on English-language sources. Having said that, I'm entirely unconvinced that WP:BIO, specifically the criteria for porn stars, is culturally biased. It's based on three basic criteria: 1) awards won or nominated, 2) notable contribution like starting a trend, 3) and appearances in mainstream media. Unless there's no industry awards in the Japanese porn industry, I don't see how these criteria are culturally biased. Another point that I would like to make is that a lot of articles are made on porn stars that are simply not notable, and a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion shows that the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted in the past, at least judging by their names, are American porn stars. Which only goes to show that WP:BIO has been just as strict, if not stricter, regarding American porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the scholarly sources I've cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination) show that they actually have far more. Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Wikipedia, understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you for the compliment, Hong, but I think your compliment points out the bias. The efforts in film-related articles you applaud, I assume, are in the area of Korean cinema. I am in the process of starting articles on highly significant Korean films made in the decades before the current boom in popularity. How do I know they are significant? Because I lived in the country, and am naturally curious and studious about such topics. I asked around. I talked with friends and acquaintances about Korean cinema. I watched Korean TV and looked through books on the local cinema. And now that I'm starting these articles, I find that sourcing on Korean films before the 1990s-- here, in the U.S., in English-- is extremely scarce. But are we standing around looking off in the horizon saying, "Nope, no sourcing for Korean film before 2001... Must not have been a single notable film made in Korea before Oldboy... Delete 'em all!" No, we aren't. But should AfDs on these articles start up, you can expect to see very similar arguments coming from me. And I'm sure you've taken a similar argument with China-related AfDs-- in fact I'm sure I've seen you almost parrot my exact words at some. (No, don't ask me to dig through old times... Deny it if you want.) It seems that it is the subject on which we differ, not the truth behind the argument. Dekkappai (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Wikipedia, understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the scholarly sources I've cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination) show that they actually have far more. Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2008 (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.