Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiromi Oshima


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  01:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiromi Oshima

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens .rf 03:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Acting career appears to also be notable. Article just needs better references, not deletion. Monty  845  04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What acting career? She has four reported roles in the seven years since her Playmate selection, two as an uncredited (and unverified) extra, two unbilled trivial/generic roles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as written above, it must be merged, not deleted User:CavarroneUser talk:Cavarrone 22:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep What is with these blanked nominations? This is a clearly notable individual as the first Japanese to become a playmate and it is also well sourced. A few examples of sourcing: , and that doesn't include those in Japanese. BelloWello (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first is an article about playmates attending Playboy's founder birthday party. The second is about how one of Playboy Racing Team's sponsors had four playmates at its booth on a trade show. The third is a Spanish three paragraphs article about how hot she is. Nothing of this is unexpected or outstanding, and happens for any girl that strips to Playboy. This is the kind of playmatehood coverage I predicted on the nomination. --Damiens .rf 05:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Damiens' analysis of the cited articles. Two of them are just mentions in laundry lists, with no significant biographical content, or other relevant content beyond the well-established and generic point that she was Miss -- 2004. The third is not coverage at all, but a bit of promotional fluff on an aggregation page with a large glamour photo and negligible factual content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Monty, BelloWello, and Morbidthoughts' assessment of similar noms.SPNic (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Granted, most of these should be redirected, but this one is just barely over the line to meet inclusion requirements.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or r/d as per Monty, et al. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see ANI at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2011 (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.