Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayumi Shinoda


 * 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. Not enough evidence of notability, seems like, the illicitness of the nomination nonwithstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ayumi Shinoda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. IMDB is not a source, though I personally think it is. Awards have to be specified if they were fan voted in or not. Trivial information is posted, Japanese TV appearances don't matter even though they do because people here don't watch Japanese TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate was not listed on the daily log. I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 16. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The subject lacks a strong notability claim and reliable source coverage. However, the nominator's "people here don't watch Japanese TV" rationale invokes the very systemic bias they are protesting at Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination). Please read WP:POINT. As for the topic at hand, editor consensus at recent AfD debates holds that the Adult Broadcasting Award is not sufficiently significant or well-known to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Super Comment Agreed that it doesn't meet requirements, a shame too as the subject is worthy but ego trips and deletion powers > information.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Update. The nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. WP:POINTy nomination but notability is dubious. No objection either way to continuing or closing this debate. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable pronographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: She's been an actress in 5 uncensored DVD movies, most japanese porn actress/es has never release anything uncensored! I started Category:Uncensored Japanese pornography and added her there. I added 'expand Japanese|日本語|date=February 2017' (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AF%A0%E7%94%B0%E3%81%82%E3%82%86%E3%81%BF) which by the way is long enough to indicate that she's famous in Japan. --Gstree (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability needs reliable sources to support it. The sources in the ja.Wikipedia article do not appear to be reliable, the closest thing to one appears to be a press release. The sources for the en.Wikipedia article are also unreliable. Finally, Category:Actors appearing in uncensored Japanese pornography is itself up for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- ja.wiki article is very weak for notability, same as here on en.wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No real assertion of notability. Claimed awards are given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and therefore fail the well-known/significant test. Moreover, the "mature actress"/MILF category by consensus general fails that standard, regardless of the awardgiver; while the other award is so lacking in significance that there appears to be no RS documentation of the award's selection criteria, even in the native-language sources which document its mere existence. No biographical content. No reliable sourcing beyond databases; other source is promotional award announcement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per Hullaballoo.  Dr Strauss   talk  19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR Blocked editors don't get free rides on deleting the content of real editors in good standing.  The knowledge that the editor was a sock was posted before any !votes.  If there is no one willing to do the work of preparing the community for a deletion discussion, there is no need for a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This argument contradicts WP:SKCRIT. When the nomination has been made by the sock of a banned/blocked editor, the discussion may be not closed as a speedy keep "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's status was discovered", as was the case here. In this situation "the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per arguments abov. Obviously not unscintillating's argument. Spartaz Humbug! 09:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this obvious? At Articles_for_deletion/Baitbus, WP:DENY was meaningful to you.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2017 (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.