Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saryu Usui

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. While it would certainly be preferable to have a Japanese speaker look for sources to demonstrate notability, notability requires verifiable evidence and an assertion that there may be sources available cannot ultimately counter an argument for deletion based on the notability guidelines. The relative cultural importance of pornography is not relevant here. If a Japanese speaker is able to find sources demonstrating notability then I would be happy to userfy the article for them to be added. Hut 8.5 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned non-admin close: The result was no consensus without prejudice against speedy renomination. If this is renominated, I recommend that someone starts a discussion on WikiProject Japan's talk page to more accurately gauge the notability. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saryu Usui

Saryu Usui (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)

The only likely source appears to be a reheated press release see here and the award does not appear important or well reported. Plus our own article on the award suggests that became internate advertising before the "award" was given. In short, fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

• Comment: I note that Japan does not deal with or consider pornography the same way as is done in the U.S. While here it is generally seen and considered to be a "baser" industry, the adult industry is treated by their media there on a level much closer to that of what we would consider regular film stars. With respects to Spartaz, and as we are not judge the rest of the world by our somewhat narrow and conservative western standards, I would hope we gain input from Japanese Wikipedians better to offer insights as to how that industry is considered and treated in Japan, under their non-Western standards of propriety or lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's comments. Pornography is a more "notable" industry in Japan than The US. T Kanagawa T (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MichaelQSchmidt's comments. There are quite a few biographies of Japanese porn performers (styled as "AV idols" which report mainstream coverage and crossover roles. This performer, in contrast, appears to be a non-notable advertising model with a small number of very minor TV roles who turned to porn and has had a relatively brief, little-remarked-on career. If porn receives broader and more respectable media coverage in Japan, it should be easier to find sources, not more difficult (as some proponents of such articles seem to imply.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• response: I admit I do not read nor understand Japanese, but at the same time I can grant that WP:UNKNOWNHERE does not mean we automatically delete non-English topics. I suggest this be re-listed as needed until Japanese-reading Wikipedians speak up and, as an AFD is not weight of numbers, a language expertise should weigh stronger to a closer in considering keep or delete !votes than any from myself or other editors unfamiliar with that language. And if WP:BASIC is met,[1][2][3][4][5] {Japanese-language translation needed) we do not look to a narrow SNG to then arbitrarily opine contrary to the the community standards set by WP:GNG & WP:BASIC... and indeed, it appears that in the Japanese Wikipedia they do not judge she or her career as harshly as is done here. Just sayin'. WP:NRVE anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael, you know how much I respect your contributions but we are well past the point of assuming good faith. Its not properly sourced and that should be the end of it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Spartaz, how is it you feel the WP:NONENG sources used (or available) for a non-English topic to be "improper"? And if WP:BASIC is met,[6][7][8][9][10] {Japanese-language translation needed), how do you determine that we cannot allow nor wait for translations? Community standards instruct that IF the many dozens of apparently available sources show WP:BASIC and WP:GNG to be met, we do not go to a lessor SNG to then arbitrarily decide the primary inclusion guidelines may be ignored. Per WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST being "improperly" sourced is not the deletable issue if sources ARE available. So please, if you do not wish to wait for Japanese-reading Wikipedians to offer translations of the Japanese-language sources that appear available, at least let a possible deletion be without prejudice for a return when such is done. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:41, 26 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.