Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & Meiri (2nd nomination)


 * 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 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Airi & Meiri
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

After weeks of AfD closure as no consensus, no sourcing has been added. The key claim to notability that they were "rare porno twins", has been proven to be incorrect via translation in the talk page, and in fact Meiri's bio data cannot be established. Since there is no longer any claim to notability, only to existence, I am re-listing for AfD. Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close less than a month has elapsed. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It hasn't been that long, and nothing has changed that will convince people to change their vote. Sure, they might not be real twins, but it doesn't matter, they are still a notable act in the Japanese porn industry.   D r e a m Focus  04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not true. They are not notable - and the article doesn't claim (sourced or unsourced) that they are for any reason. They are just porn actresses, like thousands other. --Cerejota (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - it has been barely two weeks since the no consensus close (on 13 March). You've got to give more time than that for something to happen if it is not violating BLP, which this is not. Aleta  Sing 05:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * question Because I find this argument compelling, are we to ignore the fact that the only claim to notability has been proven false? This being a BLP and all that. A good argument will lead to me retiring the nom. --Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the article lists their recording and several magazine "appearances". That seems to be a claim to notability, which would preclude the A7 speedy deletion you said should be appropriate in the last AfD. As to whether the recording and magazine appearances actually constitute enough real notability, I am not qualified to comment one way or another. This entire topic area is one with which I am not familiar, and I do not read Japanese. Aleta  Sing  06:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An editor who does know Japanese claimed it they were not notables (and less relevant, claimed to have worked with one of the two models). I do agree is not speedy, which is why I raised a new AfD... I just felt this new development needed attention.--Cerejota (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close and Comment Airi & Meiri were promoted as "ふたご"-- this word is used in titles to their videos. Yahoo translates ふたご as "twins... a twin". An anonymous editor popped up on the article's talk page to claim this does not mean twins, and this has spurred the original Speedy/Prod/AfD-nominator to take another stab at it. However, HERE I asked a longtime native-Japanese-speaking editor about this question and she has confirmed that the word does mean "twin," not "look-alike". The pair were promoted as twins. The nominator's new "evidence" for this AfD is false, and this new AfD is not only premature, it is groundless. Dekkappai (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It is also disingenuous for the nominator to claim no work has been done on the article. Work was done during the last AfD and aggressively reverted by the nominator and other editors. This aggressive guarding of the article has continued in the weeks since the closure of the last AfD. To show that work on the article would be possible, if allowed, I have just posted an expanded and better-sourced version of the article HERE. Dekkappai (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As WP:NOTAGAIN and due to meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close Way too soon for such a contentious AfD to be given a new round. -- Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Could an admin help move Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri to Articles for deletion/Airi & Meiri? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. Lotta people citing essays or complaining about technical points. None of them can offer any factual claims verifiable in reliable sources. The sources Dekkappai refers to as "aggressively reverted" are catalogs, advertisements, and other promotional material. So he can't complain about people removing them for some sort of vaguely nefarious reason, let's look at this version's references in detail.
 * This is a profile on a site selling videos of them, and the factuality of the claim (their birthdates) is in question. Since their birthdate is part of the selling point of their act and this site is selling that act, it's not much of a reliable source.
 * This is another profile on a site selling videos of them. Again, not really reliable for anything but the claim that they've made pornographic films, and not really very good for establishing notability (since there's no commentary and they're selling a product). It's also not a reliable source to establish that they're twins, since, again, this is a selling point touted by people who are selling something.
 * This is a database of AV idols. I can't find any info on who it is maintained by, or where its info comes from.
 * This is ANOTHER site selling videos.
 * This is Amazon.co.jp selling a video that another, unreliable site says is the same person, and does not mention the Airi & Meiri act.
 * Yet another site selling videos.
 * This is exactly the same as #6.
 * This is yet another site selling videos, and does not take note of the director or describe him as noted.
 * This is ANOTHER SITE SELLING VIDEOS, touting the selling points of something they're selling.
 * The same site as #9, touting the selling points of something they're selling.
 * A promotional site, cited to reference the fact that there was a promotional site with promotional materials.
 * This is a weekly newsletter that mentions A&M as one of more than a dozen idols who have a blog. Nothing more than a passing reference.
 * This is their promotional blog.
 * This is a promotional site for the company that ran the promotional event, and the site doesn't work so I can't tell you what it says.
 * #6 and #7 strike again. The song is not described as featured, and the featured selling point of this video is obvious.
 * This is a promotional site run by the publishers of their single.
 * This has three strikes against it. The event doesn't feature A&M. A&M are only mentioned in passing, as one of a half-dozen guest appearances. And it's the site run by the operators and promoters of the event.
 * This is the same newsletter from before, saying that A&M were one of multiple idols appearing at an event that attracted a whopping 200 people.
 * This is a newspost on a fansite (not a news site, as the article claims) that speculates that a TBS anime was inspired by A&M, based on the similarity between the chord progression.
 * I'm done listing from here on out. #20-23 are all av-channel.com, another site selling videos. #24+ are all sites selling videos or magazines, cited to prove nothing more than that videos and magazines exist and are for sale.
 * So. Where's the reference that makes any factual claim about these "twins" that isn't selling something? Where's the reference that mentions them as more than one of a dozen or so idols? Where's the reference we're going to use to write a biography? Do we have a reliable source that claims that they're twins, or even related?
 * WP:BAND isn't met; they've not released even one album or headlined even one show. WP:PORNBIO isn't met, as there are no awards here, no genre they've founded or contributed to, nor any featured appearances in notable mainstream media. (Bubka is not mainstream, the shows they made guest appearances at are far from notable as they've only merited offhand mention in online newsletters, and the rest are specialist porn/erotica sold through specialist sellers.)
 * And in response to those who are complaining about the fact that there's a second AFD: "Despite the outcome of this AfD, can I suggest to the maintainers of this article that there is a huge question mark over the reliability of these sources - Rightly or wrongly, I forsee us being right back here again very soon if something more substantial is not found." Nothing more substantial has been found; indeed, many of the insubstantial would-be references are here back in the article, and haven't improved with time. So here we are again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AfDs are here to prove notability, not to hold articles up to FA standards. The sources above prove that these are notable subjects. The duo starred in top-selling videos for years, with at least one in the #5 spot three years after its release. They made public appearances,,, interviews, etc. Note that Man in Black has again deleted the article and sourcing. This is why, during the extensive time since the last AfD-- or was that just a few weeks ago?-- no work has been done on the article. Dekkappai (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Save a couple of offhand references in newsletter hosted on Allabout.co.jp and the New-Akiba.com reference, everything is a shop selling you something. Where's the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Implying that I have some sort of grudge doesn't add that to the article, and it doesn't make these good sources for a BLP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And Dekkappai's links aren't new. They're the exact same links I addressed above, mostly selling you videos, selling you tickets to events where they make a guest appearance, or advertising a show. Repetition hasn't improved them significantly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd just like to add that this entire fiasco over this article is a classic case of attempting to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. Had the nominator and a few other editors trusted the Wikipedia community to look at the article and to judge the work done on it during the AfD, without repeatedly blanking it, I, for one, might not have made the effort to dig up these hard-to-find, but indisputable, evidence of "notability". That the sources don't hold up to GA/FA standards is, of course, beside the point. The removed sourcing shows that the duo are internationally-known, notable performers, who are still top-sellers years after their career together has ended. Dekkappai (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources do not hold up to WP:N. (The bulk of the commentary is in non-independent, non-reliable sources. The remainder is far from significant.) Nobody has mentioned GA or FA but you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You deleted half of the article. That does seem like a lot.  Some of that information, such as mentioning how many videos they each stared in, I think relevant.  Not all their films are listed after all.  Do you object to the mention of them doing 30 videos, because the reference is to a commercial site that confirms it?  Where else would you find a reference for that?  If it was someone in the music industry, wouldn't they link to the official company site to confirm some information, even if they had a website which also sold their products?  I think links to the official site of them or the company that produced their products would be perfectly fine.  As for the rest, is there any reason to doubt the specific information referenced is false if coming from that site?  I don't think being on a commercial site automatically makes something invalid as a reference.   D r e a m Focus  01:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, I deleted half of the article. I'm not going to put up with badly-sourced claims in a BLP. A single link to their official site is one thing, or to companies they've worked with, but not dozens(!) of links to catalog sellers passed off as sources.
 * As for reasonable doubt, I have reason to doubt catalog sellers when they are touting the features of their products, especially when these features (popularity, relation, age, status as twins) cannot be confirmed in any reliable source.
 * If someone wants to add an external link to their blog, the publisher of their videos, etc. that's fine. If someone wants to pass it off as a reliable source, we have a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz 05:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not about to let this AfD get flushed down the same toilet as the last one. I'm deleting a personal attack and a reference to it. Stay CIVIL. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk
 * Speedy keep as, and with no disrespects to the nominator, but wih millions of articles on wikipedia, it is a bit much to expect everyone to drop interest in other articles and jump to improve this one in just the few weeks since the last AfD. In all good faith, wiki has no deadline for improvement... just the hope that it happens.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep - clearly notable by the millions of google hits. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. Unionsoap (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You even linked to WP:ATA. :( - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It should be pointed out that Airi & Eiri easily pass Wikipedia's definition of "notability" for their subject area: WP:PORNBIO. Specifically, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". Out of the vast number of AVs (a 1994 report showed 14,000 adult videos being made annually in Japan.), Airi & Meiri had top-sellers in the cosplay genre over the past two years-- the only two for which I see sales records., Cosplay Channel shows that their video If Airi & Meiri Were My Girlfriends (もしも あいり めいり が僕のふたご彼女だったら…) (January 2006) was the 8th top-seller for the year of 2008, and, over three years after the video's initial release, it remains the 5th best seller in the genre for the month of March 2009.
 * Also, the removal of the text and sourcing which shows their "notability" is inappropriate and damaging to the article. The reasons given for the removal appear to be a misinterpretation of WP:GRAPEVINE. However, These sources are used only for information on their professional careers, not for contentious biographical information. These are reliable sources for information on professional details such as interviews, video releases, musical recordings, public appearances, and to show that they were mentioned multiple times in a column, by Kemuta Ōtsubo a published authority in the field of AV. It shows that Airi performed under the name Risako Nakahara,, and under that name released at least 30 videos, in an industry in which the average career is about a year with 5-10 videos produced. This is all public, professional career information, not biographical detail, and its removal is inappropriate and harmful to the article by making the subjects appear to be less "notable" than they are, and by preventing editors from working to improve the article. Gutting the article of all information except the release of a single and one public appearance makes it look laughable. The only reason I can see for this is the make it look easier to delete, and I believe this is grossly inappropriate during an AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Being one of the higher sellers in a sales category on a catalog site is not a unique contribution, nor is starting it a trend, nor is it a groundbreaking feature film.
 * Did you have a reliable source that described them as best-sellers? This is the third time those same links have been linked on this AFD. Repetition has not turned catalog sites and offhand mentions into reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment For those not intentionally missing the point: a blockbuster "as applied to film or theater, denotes a very popular and/or successful production." Three years as a top-seller and still in the #5 spot just might constitute a "very popular and/or successful production" within the genre. As for the uncivil misrepresentations of my statements above, I hope that the redaction works both ways this time, and not just to remove cited material from the article and complaints against that at the AfD... Dekkappai (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who called it a blockbuster? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.