Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akari Hoshino

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 00:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akari Hoshino

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article lacking reliable sources. There are those who have in the past lamaneted that Wikipedia has more articles on pornographic film actresses than women poets. That is not true in the American categories, with 1669 articles on women poets and 408 on pornographic film actresses. However in the Japanese case we have 71 articles on women poets and 148 on pornographic film actresses. I think the Am porn actresses cat used to be well over 600, but through application of notability standards has seen unnotable articles removed. I have to admit even there I am not at all convinced all 408 are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot for the life of me understand why a mass media field will have more participants and interest more people. The solution is to create and source, not delete. I understand some people dislike what pornography is about due to various reasons (religion or other) but just like there are notable career criminals and murderers alas there are also notable adult workers. wp:otherstuffexists in the opposite direction does not make that go away.GuzzyG (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing needs the availability of sources that are WP:RELIABLE. Reputable media tend to shun porn while the Internet is flooded with porn-related promotional material. The editors here don't dislike porn. Many of these editors maintain the porn articles while trying to clear out material based on crap sources. Just being a "famous" or "popular" porn star doesn't establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's a laughable system that editors who do not speak Japanese nominate a whole bunch of Japanese articles and say no american sources are found while searching a romanized name which the subject would never use as it is not their language, sounds fair, right? Also using significant American porn awards as a justification for notability for someone who participates in Japanese pornography. GuzzyG (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That cuts both ways. If you are going to put badly sourced shit on the English wikipedia bevause you don't speak Japanese to find out if real sources probably exist than maybe don't. By the way none of your arguments address the issue here. Do you have reliable sources for this blp? If you dom't what is your point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - She's an actress in the notable film Killer Motel. --Gstree (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The film isn't notable either and should probably be sent to AFD, Also starring in a (non notable) film isn't a free pass to an article, NFILM, PORNBIO and GNG are core policies here all of which she fails . –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject. Fails WP:BIO. Article lacks significant coverage in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. G-searches in both English and Japanese are turning up nothing to establish notability. The sources in the subject's (星野あかり) Japan Wikipedia article are all PR related. CBS527^Talk 23:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. The claimed awards fail the "well-known and significant" standard. The article provides little to no nontrivial sourcing, and no more appears available. Appearing in a single nn film falls well below the alternative PORNBIO standard, and certainly fails WP:NACTOR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 18 March 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.