Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saki Hatsumi

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. At this point the discussion is just going around in circles about whether the coverage and/or the awards are significant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saki Hatsumi

Saki Hatsumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Claimed award is given by a broadcaster to performers in its own programming, and is an employee-of-the-month type award which does nothing to establish notability. No independent reliable sourcing or coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No independent reliable sources? Tokyo Sports is a national newspaper with a circulation of over 2 million; Zakzak is the web edition of Nikkan Fuji, an evening paper which has a circulation of 1.5 million[1]. Both are sources used for Japanese entertainment-related articles all over Wikipedia. And those are just the ones already cited in the article. Here are some more: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Note again that these include major media sources: Sankei Sports is a national newspaper with a circulation of 1.3 million; Weekly Playboy is a magazine with a circulation of 230,000[11]. The nominator is wrong about the award: this is SkyPerfecTV, the main satellite broadcaster in Japan (kind of like Dish TV in the USA), and the award covers not what it itself produces, but what is shown on satellite television. The award is an annual award that is well-reported in the major media: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. The award is notable and the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michitaro and also to comment that in determining how well known or significant an award is, the proper evaluation is reviewing the coverage of the award by independent reliable sources and their respective circulation, not whether there are conflicts of interests or biases in the selection of the award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The circulation of the source may be enough to establish whether an award is "well-known", but not significant. Rhodes Scholarships are reported in The New York Times; various British crown honors are reported in national UK newspapers; but neither is considered sufficiently significant to establish individual notability for their receipients. And I'm not aware of any other case where such employee of the week/month/year type awards are considered to meet the well-known/significant test. And the recent deletion discussions and deletions related to beauty pageant winners underscore the point that "well-known" alone does not establish "well-known and significant". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I must reiterate that you are wrong about the award. It is not a employee of the month or year award. See here [17]. Provide evidence to the contrary if you think this source is incorrect. As for significant, please carefully read WP:GNG. Since "significant" is often a subjective matter, GNG nowhere gives a measure for determining significance other than whether the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we are judging on that, she passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• PORNBIO point 1 requires that the subject have won a "well-known and significant industry award," which entails more than the award merely being notable under GNG (and is unrelated to the recipient's notability under GNG). It appears you are confusing "significant" in "a significant award" (an award that is significant) with "significant" in the term "significant coverage"; these are not the same thing. Rebbing 06:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said already, I don't know PORNBIO well and thus am not referring to it. I am solely arguing on the basis of WP:GNG, which is what is sufficient here. I have not confused the term "significant." I have only reminded people that WP:GNG takes care not to wade into subjective standards of what is important or not. We can't waste our time here arguing over our own individual standards of what is significant. I've seen far too many AfDs on, for instance, idol singers, where participants offered no objective evidence but just said that idol singers are vapid or of little importance. We have to move away from such bias (which I fear is evident in this AfD) and use the objective standards found in WP:GNG. I have provided plenty of independent RS which are sufficient to create an article. I have yet to see a fact-based argument that these are not RS. Michitaro (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm not aware of any other case where such employee of the week/month/year type awards are considered to meet the well-known/significant test." Not only is this a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, you must not watch sports with its various league/broadcaster sponsored awards, most blatantly the ESPYs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of those are reliable sources an most are passing mentions, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your reasons for asserting that they are not reliable sources. Michitaro (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michitaro. The award is legit and fulfills notability req. Holanthony (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability (DEL8). The subject fails GNG as the available coverage, including that presented here, is more trivial than significant. This point is illustrated (but obviously not proved, cf. NEXIST) by the fact that, despite apparent editor interest, the article gives absolutely nothing of substance about the subject.

  Neither of the Adult Broadcasting Awards, despite receiving regular and routine coverage, is a "well known and significant industry award" as contemplated by PORNBIO point 1. Even if the subject met PORNBIO, which she doesn't, she so clearly fails BASIC that PORNBIO doesn't apply: PORNBIO, like BIO's other additional criteria, is to be used in mine run debates, where notability is plausible, not to find notability where it is plainly lacking. Cf. BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); WP:Notability § Why we have these requirements. Rebbing 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A curious set of arguments. First, the initial argument is completely undermined by WP:NEXIST, which you seem to admit. We cannot in any way judge this based on the current state of the article or supposed degree of interest. The article is less than a month old and created by a newbie. I myself just hang around AfD (and I have participated in hundreds of AfDs), so this is not the sort of article I would regularly encounter. Since the first argument fails, I then just have to reiterate that she passes WP:GNG. I have never been involved with WikiProject Pornography, so I cannot judge the standards of WP:PORNBIO (though it seems to me she passes criteria 1 and 3). I thus have only concentrated on the standards of WP:GNG, which take priority anyway. By WP:GNG, the award is notable, and by WP:GNG she is notable. I should note that given the unfounded assertions of the nominator that there were no reliable sources, I initially just concentrated on finding sources that anyone familiar with the Japanese media would immediately recognize as reliable sources from mainstream major media. That list should have been sufficient. But even if someone thinks it isn't, the list I gave is, again due to WP:NEXIST, not grounds to argue that no RS exist. There are a lot more sources in the adult press I did not touch. Since no one has offered any argument that the sources are not reliable, I think the main issue is whether the coverage is significant. Of the ones I already gave, most give information that can be used in an article (especially about awards, career, current status, etc.), but [18] or [19] are substantial. To add a few, again from major media sources, there is [20], [21], or [22]. I am not that familiar with the AV press, but there are also these: [23], [24], [25], etc. It should finally be reiterated, per WP:WHYN, that we "require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." There is certainly enough for that. Michitaro (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My assertion that the subject fails GNG isn't undermined by NEXIST: my argument is predicated purely on the available coverage; the state of the article is merely a convenient illustration, and I said the same in my vote.

      You identify these two sources as substantial (my apologies for the butchered translations)—

      • "『スカパー！アダルト放送大賞2017』PR大使の初美沙希ちゃん＆成宮いろはちゃんがセクシー水着でサイゾー編集部を襲撃！" [SKY PerfecT! Adult Broadcast Grand Prize 2017—PR Ambassador Saki Hatsumi and Iroha Narimiy Attacked the Saizo Editorial Department with Sexy Swimsuits!]. Cyzo (in Japanese). 1 December 2016. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
      • "２０１６年のアダルト人気Ｎｏ．１女王は？ 前回受賞の初美沙希＆成宮いろはが体を張ってアピール！" [Popular No. 2016 1 Pornographic Queen Is Your Company? First Misaki Yuu & Narimiya Iroha of the Previous Awards Stretched Out and Appealed!]. Shueisha News (in Japanese). Shueisha. 1 December 2016. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
      —yet both are mere staff-written Web interviews. The Dansen-web and Menscyzo pieces appear similarly weak; also, I struggle to accept that reputable Japanese news sites include previews of hardcore pornography at the bottom of articles. In sum, the coverage you are advancing as significant looks to me like the sort of coverage that is routinely found to be insufficient (and unreliable) when it appears as English-language sources covering American performers. Rebbing 03:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I struggle to accept that reputable Japanese news sites include previews of hardcore pornography" unfortunately just shows your unfamiliarity with Japanese media and also possible bias towards the subject. Let me explain. The majority of Japanese media are concentrated in several conglomerates centered on the main national newspapers and television networks. Yomiuri, Mainichi, Asahi, and Sankei are the main papers. Most of them, in addition to some other major publishers, also put out sports papers that are divisions within the company and often share stories and personnel (Sankei Sports is thus a division of the Sankei newspaper that is part of the Fuji-Sankei conglomerate). The sports papers have huge national readership (they are sold at every newsstand in the nation) and are of course major sources of sports news. But they also devote considerable space and energy into reporting on the entertainment industry, and are thus a major daily source of entertainment news. (I could add that since the sports paper articles usually do not disappear behind a pay wall, they are cited more than the major papers on Wikipedia.) Since many have a majority male readership, several also have adult-oriented pages and thus regularly report on the adult entertainment industry. (This produces odd moments such as when Japanese businessmen riding on the subway are reading these pages while standing next to high school girls, but that's another story.) That explains why major media companies are reporting on hardcore pornography. If you cannot accept that, then you are simply biased. What strikes me as significant about Hatsumi is that I was able to find a lot on her that was not on the adult pages, but in the regular entertainment sections. From my experience, that is not too common, and makes her stand out. Many of the articles above called her one of the most popular porn actresses in Japan; the SkyPerfect award was for best actress among the 10,000 porn films shown on their system[26]. I agree that so far I have not found deep indepth articles, but I also don't have access to much of the entertainment reporting in Japan, which is in the weekly magazines (few of them are online). We working on Japan pages constantly suffer from the inability to access sources (see WP:BIAS). But I do believe I have found enough articles to write a substantial article, which is all this is required by WP:WHYN. From my considerable experience working with Japan-related articles on AfD, this easily passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you misunderstand: I'm not insisting that reporting on hardcore pornography is inconsistent with reliability; I'm saying that a media outlet that litters its articles with porn thumbnails, as is the case at the the Dansen-web piece you cited, is indicative of something less than serious journalism.

          Contrary to your assertion, WHYN and the policies on which it rests speak to more than merely having enough material to write a useful article: it's at least as important that our articles be based on reliable, independent sources that can be presented in a neutral way. WHYN is not a free pass. (I'm honestly not sure how you misunderstood this. Did you even look at WHYN before citing it‽)

          Your arguments about circulation and reliability are also unavailing. By your logic, the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail ought to be considered reliable. (They aren't.) The greater concern is editorial process and a reputation for fact-checking; certain things, like website context and article by-lines, may give hints about journalistic integrity.

          As for your accusations of bias: I am applying the same standards I use when judging English-language news sources. Japan is not a Third World country, and I see no reason to treat unsigned, tabloid-quality articles as reliable merely because they're in Japanese. (Relatedly, the community has recently rejected the idea of lowering the bar for subjects affected by systemic bias. See Discussion: Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability; Discussion: Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N.) You're entitled to your vote, but bludgeoning those who vote otherwise to insist that your sources are reliable because you say so and that anyone who disagrees is "simply biased" does not make it so. Rebbing 05:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          • User:Rebbing, it's not about User:Michitaro calling you "biased", it's about you yourself displaying proof of the very same when you say things like "I am applying the same standards I use when judging English-language news sources" after the fact that User:Michitaro already gave you a very lengthy and detailed explanation of the Japanese situation. To disregard this and still apply one's own culturally biased standards is generally considered to be very definition of "bias". You need to present a better argument if you want to pursue your argument as User:Michitaro has already invalidated your point. Holanthony (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rejecting an ad hoc, lower standard of reliability applied to Japanese sources is "the very definition of 'bias.'" Got it. No wonder the community overwhelmingly disapproved of adjusting notability for "bias." Rebbing 00:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Rebbing: You don't appear to be listening to what I am explaining to you. You citation of ads on a page as proof of unreliability is not only weak, but can seem to based on bias towards certain kinds of content. Dansen is the adult page of Tokyo Sports, again one of if not the largest circulating sports papers in Japan, one sold at every newsstand in Japan. It is a reliable source used all over Wikipedia. It is not a blog or some shady adult website, but a long-standing professional media organization with editorial control. You have not offered evidence proving that Tokyo Sports or any of the other major media sources that I provided are unreliable. I cannot help but see your main argument as being, "Since they deal with adult material, they must be unreliable." That is bias, plain and simple. I cited WP:WHYN because I have used it many times in AfD discussions and know it well. I use it because I know my sources are RS and thus can use it. Belittling me is not going to help your argument. The main reason I cite WP:BIAS is out of an effort to educate you, given your unfamiliarity with Japan. Yes, Japan is not a Third World country, but it is a country that has not adopted the internet the way America has, and thus most major publications are still offline and inaccessible. There are few Wiki editors who can manage Japanese and we do our best to live up to Wikipedia standards with the limited access we have. This situation doesn't excuse everything. I have nominated dozens and dozens of Japan related articles for AfD because they don't pass WP:GNG. In my experience, from my long familiarity with the sources, this article passes, plain and simple. Michitaro (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't say that Dansen is unreliable merely because it distributes pornography. Instead, I'm saying it's unreliable because it appears to be a tabloid, a Japanese-language equivalent of the Enquirer; the thumbnail links to related "articles" that are hardcore porn (not articles about porn) reinforces that perception. I have read your repeated replies to my vote, and not one of them attempts to explain why this or any of the other citations you have provided are any more reliable than an English-language tabloid like the National Enquirer, which, despite having a wide circulation and being sold at every newsstand in America, is not considered reliable.

              Your claim that you've used WHYN "many times" and "know it well" is flatly contradicted by your earlier argument that "having enough articles to write a substantial article" is "all t[hat] is required by []WHYN." A cursory reading of WHYN reveals that WHYN: (1) doesn't require anything itself but merely explains notability in terms of other policies and guidelines and (2) covers much more than "having enough articles." Despite your eminent expertise on the subject, I suggest you read it all the way through before citing it again.

              BIAS is an essay, not a guideline or policy; and the community has repeatedly rejected the notion of taking bias into consideration at AfD. As for your conclusion that the subject meets GNG "plain and simple," I am content to agree to disagree—you will note I have not repeatedly bludgeoned your vote. Rebbing 00:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

              • Let me be clear about my logic in this one case: 1) Tokyo Sports is one of the major newspapers in Japan, 2) It is a reliable source for sports and entertainment news that is used throughout Wikipedia, 3) Tokyo Sports, like several other major papers in Japan, has an adult section that is part of the newspaper, 4) Dansen is the web version of that adult section, 5) Dansen is thus the product of a reliable news organization. Your impression about what it "appears" to be or that it "looks" like the National Enquirer is simply a subjective impression that holds little objective weight in this AfD. I am still waiting for you to provide objective evidence that disputes my logic or my evidence. Why you keep on saying the same thing about WP:WHYN mystifies me. You say I am misapplying WHYN because that only applies to articles that pass notability requirements. I have said from the start that this article does pass notability requirements, which is why WHYN can be cited. Sure we disagree, but it is a disagreement not about WHYN, but about this article. Michitaro (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have now added more content to the article and cited some RS.Holanthony (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michitaro and Holanthony who added reliable sources. I also agree that she passes WP:GNG. --Gstree (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Darthbunk Pakt Dunft (message) 01:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - One of the inclusion standards that apply to this article here states: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." The 2016 "Best Actress" award would almost certainly be a "significant" award category, but my limited knowledge of the Japanese adult film industry doesn't allow me to determine if the Adult Broadcasting Awards are a "well-known" adult film award ceremony. Since I also personally don't understand Japanese well-enough, I'm also unable to determine if the subject of this article has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" (which is very similar to a GNG-pass) or not, but, FWIW, the arguments made here by "Michitaro" seem to be persuasive on that point. Guy1890 (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps in order to help this along, I have followed Holanthony's lead and tried to start expanding the article. This may take a few days since I am very busy right now (and editing AV-related articles is not exactly my cup of tea), but hopefully this can give an indication of where the article can go. Michitaro (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the subject of the article exists, and appears to have some notoriety in the home market, but that's about it. The section "Activism" is symptomatic of such puff-ed up articles, as the actress simply expresses her opinion in an interview:

• In March 2016, a Human Rights Now! report highlighted the negative aspects of Japan's pornographic industry. This caused a backlash among several Japanese pornographic performers, among them Hatsumi, who said: "At least in my own eyes, the current industry is very clean. I do it on my own will and so do many of my comrades".^[1]

This is hardly "activism". The article overall falls short of encyclopedia notability, so WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically stating that something is unencyclopedic is really not a valid reason for deletion at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...falls short of encyclopedic notability means that the subject is non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as only trivial awards and nothing of actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to be rude, but I notice that you cast this vote a mere two minutes after a series of edits elsewhere. Even if you speak Japanese fluently, I have grave doubts that you or anyone would be able to review the sources cited in the article, outlined above by Michitaro, and uncovered during a proper BEFORE part D in such a short time frame. Rebbing 19:03, 8 January 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.