Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runa Akasaka

Add links
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 keep. MBisanz talk 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runa Akasaka[edit]

Runa Akasaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not meet wp:PORN BIO - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable. I intended to work on this article later, and, before this AfD was started, I left a note stating this on the talk page of the article's creator. Japanese erotic cinema is a notoriously difficult area in which to work, and this article was created today. AfDing this within hours of its creation without first putting templates of concern over notability/sourcing is an abuse of AfD process. Dekkappai (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as above. Makitomoda (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: And the subject meets wp:PORN BIO in what way? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:wp:PORN BIO are not criteria that have to be met - they are additional criteria for adding someone - I quote from that section: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Notability should be gauged against peers in the subject area, the DMM website (http://dmm.co.jp) lists more than 20,000 Japanese AV actresses, Akasaka is definitely notable among this group. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her notability is shown by her extensive career and filmography while working for major Japanese AV studios. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Cherryblossom1982[reply]
  • Question The nominator began attempting to delete this article-- in a subject area in which he has up until now shown no interest or knowledge that I am aware of-- within two minutes of its creation. After Prodding it and AfDing it, now he puts a "Notability" tag on it. Here's my question: Huh? Dekkappai (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The notability tag was placed on after examining WP:BEFORE. Ideally I would've put in on beforehand, but I figure now is better than never. Also I did not know you had to be an subject matter expert to edit a Wikipedia article. In addition I'm still wondering how this meets wp:PORN BIO. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I guess it's just a weakness of mine. I don't like to barge into areas on subjects, in languages, and in cultures in which I have not edited, am apparently totally unfamiliar, and start saying, "This goes, this stays," before asking those who have some experience in the area. But that's me-- I'm here to contribute, not gain status by deleting. An increasingly minority attitude here. Dekkappai (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a little to the article which shows that this actress is a performer in the jukujo (熟女) "mature woman" genre who has broken out of that niche to appear in at least one mainstream theatrical release, and the mainstream men's entertainment magazine Weekly Playboy. Dekkappai (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are Additional criteria FOR including someone, NOT rules for exclusion. Notability is not strictly defined by a set of rules and no failure to meet one rule or another should be grounds for exclusion.Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a huge problem with Wikipedia's notability criteria which I hope will be realized and adressed some day. In direct contradiction to article-editing policies requiring reliable, secondary sources, our definition of "notability" is a purely home-made, Original Research mess. This is why they are constantly changing, this is why they so miserably fail to address any subject which is outside the interest of the average Wikipedian editor demographic, and this is why applying them literally to any and all cases-- regardless of country, culture, time period, genre, etc.-- results in bias. As the discussion to create WP:PORNBIO shows, these "notability" criteria are created by pure Original Research with no regard to reliable sources in the subject. One editor comes in with hand raised, "Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea, let's say they're notable if..." other editors chip in with personal opinions, and all the biases that may include and the policy is set. So, how about we follow Wikipedia editing requirements, and look at what the reliable, secondary sources say about Japanese erotic entertainment? First: Erotic entertainers such as Akasaka have a much higher profile (i.e., are more "notable") within Japanese society than are there U.S. counterparts. In The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, Rosemary Iwamura wrote, "In Japan there is not the same line drawn between pornography and family entertainment that there is in the West. Here in Japan, a more liberated view about sex blurs that line."[1] Second, to determine what a "notable" Japanese AV actress is, let's see what a reliable, secondary source defines an "average" Japanese AV actress. In the Tokyo Journal, author and Japan-correspondent, Kjell Fornander [2] wrote, that the average AV career lasts one year, and produces between five and ten videos. [3] So, has Akasaka appeared in mainstream Japanese media? Almost certainly. However the policy of the Japanese media of constantly removing good sources from the web, and blocking their archiving, makes this extremely difficult to prove. (see: Mainichi_Shimbun#WaiWai_controversy_and_cancellation for one high-profile example of this-- "tabloid" includes not only the sensationalist drivel which offended the readers, but also occasional reliable interviews and articles on subjects in the field of erotic entertainment.) Nevertheless, we see that Akasaka-- a niche-genre performer-- has appeared in mainstream media such as pink film, V-cinema and Weekly Playboy. Also, she clearly exceeds the "average" AV actress career in length of career-- exceeding the outside limit (one year) by at least three time), and by number of starring videos (the outside being 10) by over six times. Clearly, when judged against the average Japanese AV actress, she is notable. Dekkappai (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sure Runa is flattered that she's elicited so much passion, but isn't your argument for another page? It doesn't seem right to fault/debate other editors for following guidelines, confessed deletionist or not. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the "passion" in the argument, and I've only recently worked on this article. I don't want notable subjects deleted, and if you cared about the good of Wikipedia, neither would you. I simply quoted from a definition of notability from reliable secondary sources on the subject of Japanese erotic entertainment, and compared this subject to them. The only "passion" I see is in the blind loyalty to a group of rules set up by pure original research, given a false stamp of legitimacy through a "consensus" based in personal opinion. Dekkappai (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. The sources found either don't mention her, or look like database or retail sites. Epbr123 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:PORNBIO seems to be hopelessly biased towards how the AV industry works in the West, to the point that attempting to apply it to Asian actors seems to be not a good idea. Avoiding that notability shortcut and resorting to the general notability requirements would be in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Every source listed at the article mentions Akasaka, except for the Weisser reference, which describes the long-running pink film series in which she appeared, and the Fornander source which is used to compare Akasaka's career to that of an average AV performer. Dekkappai (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to meet GNG and seems well-written for being several days old. I'm willing to assume good faith in our editors on this one. Consider sending to DYK as well. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Even though I nominated this for AFD, the article has been expanded nicely to show a bit of mainstream coverage, and like the above poster, I'm assuming good faith about the references and more improvement. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Nomination withdraw.--Jmundo (talk) 17:37, 30 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runa_Akasaka&oldid=1142233089"