Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka

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. Plenty of people asserting that usable sources exist, but nobody has produced them. Those sources which were produced were refuted as not meeting the requirements of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Tanaka

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

None of the sources are RS so fails GNG and no evidence passes PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Has anyone seen the infobox image ? ... Her eyes really stand out!, Nice knockers but they're not a free ticket to an article which is rather quite a shame!, Sorry back on topic~~ clearly fails PORNBIO & GNG, I'm surprised I haven't !voted Keep actually.... –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree that there are no RS; see DMM.com. I worked at a naval hospital for 11 years, and I can hold my own in the swearing department, thank you very much. But I am taken aback that you would make a sexist remark, @Davey, at an AfD discussion; please STOP. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The DMM.com page is quite obviously not an independent, reliable source; it is, instead, a vendor page offering Tanaka's porn videos for sale/download. Many thoroughly non-notable self-published writers have similar pages on Amazon, and they do absolutely nothing to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there is enough coverage in Japanese sources and news outlets to warrant inclusion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has coverage of reliable secondary sources that passes WP:GNG. As mentioned above, it appears that DMM.com is sufficient enough. JAGUAR 16:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DMM is a vendor site offering Tanaka's videos for sale as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz points out above. The coverage is neither independent nor substantial. Just a catalog of available videos. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the sources in the article are not necessarily the best, there are others that can be used (see Google books and general i'net searches). To me that shows the lady is notable enough as far as the reliable sources go. – SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat You really need to cite your sources for your comment to have any validity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are several links at the top, following the words "Fins sources". I suggest you take the basic step of clicking on them and doing some basic research. My comments have as much validity as they always do, and I care not one jot whether your inability to find basic information means you are unable to verify the, or not. I've also made a basic media search on the NexisLexis news database and found several other searches, and no, I won't cite the, either – you'll have to AGF, which seems to be in short supply here. – SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unevidenced assertion then. I'm sure the closing admin will give this the weight is deserves. I have never seen an argument before where asking someone to cite sources is rebuffed with demands to agf. Seems an assumption of BF on your part maybe. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks – I've told you where to find the information. Do some basic research like the rest of us. The closing admin may well take into account your bludgeoning of comments left by good faith editors and your inability to do some basic searches and your lack of judgement in opening an AfD where one doesn't need to be opened. – SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of your demanding I AGF while you are uncivil to me is not lost but in fact I made two comments in this discussion politely asking users to cite the sources they are relying on. Maybe you should AGF yourself? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- SchroCat, we can't tell whether those sources are reliable or not until we open the pages and observe them. As it stands, they're just uncertain. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks to me (although I may be wrong), that she's been mentioned multiple times in reliable sources (such as her name being a part of Google News searches of her name, where it's clearly about her and not someone similarly named). This article that we have now is far from the best. However, she appears to be somewhat notable at least. I'm deliberately choosing not to comment on the above back-and-forth. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeWithMarkets mentions do not meet the GNG. Which sources do you think meet the criteria for having multiple detailed reliable secondary sources? I couldn't find any and neither could users experienced in porn deletion discussions. I'm also struggling to find the policy on WP:Somewhat notable. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved much of what is not about the notability of this article to the talk page, any further comments about "puerile" comments can be made there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This certainly isn't going to go down as one of the better-argued XFD discussions. A few points should be clear, however. First, this BLP includes no significant reliable sources. The most frequently cited source, DMM, is a vendor page, and does nothing to establish notability. Other vendor pages cited include the "AV Idol Directory", "CD Japan", Scoreland, Saibunkan, and the unsurprisingly-not-cited-in-any-other-articles Eboobstore.com. The "PG website" is a fan-created database which attempts to catalog every pink/porn film produced in Japan, and, like iafd.com, its entries no not contribute to notability. While some of the keep !votes allude to, but don't identify, other potential RSs, nothing turns up on examination of the sources, and there appear to be other people sharing the name turning up in the searches, including a TV series character [1] and a notorious child killer [2], as well as a pair of chemists whose names are often cited consecutively, producing the string "Hitomi; Tanaka" [3]. This is just another BLP supportable only by promotional sources, and that shows the subject isn't notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no GNG RS given in "keep" arguments, find two or three that are "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" and tell us what they are to change my mind. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't often comment in this subject area, but I think the comments by Spartaz and by The Big Bad Wolfowitz 's comments about the unreliability of merely citing a Google or similar search as being sufficient without actually examining the articles is very much to the point, and BBW's examples very useful in proving that point. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in Japan.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without demonstrated coverage by independent reliable sources. The "Look at the Find Sources links" argument doesn't fly as these searches show lots of low quality or false positive hits without anything obviously reliable or non-trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 14 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.