Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasumi Nakane


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kasumi Nakane

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced article on a living person; I suspect it's an ad since the only link is her talent agency. Someone de-prodded without comment and added Japanese Erotic Cinema, but she doesn't actually appear on that template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, very much not a notable person at all. Google turns up nothing reliable -- in fact, the 2nd hit is this very Wikipedia page. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Over 18000 hits for "Kasumi Nakane -wikipedia", none of which even remotely give a job description. Nearest I can come up with is she's a Japanese pin-up girl. Article is borderline speedy IMO. --Sethacus 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia shouldn't be the most significant source of info for a bio, or they are not very notable to begin with. Pharmboy 02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Do some homework. Just because you can't find much in the way of English-language sources via Google doesn't mean the subject is auto-nonnotable, especially if they are stars outside the Anglosphere.  Did anyone even bother to look at her ja.wikipedia article?  The list of movie roles and publications is much larger over there, the article is subject to either incessant editwarring or vandalism, because it is protected from editing, the talk page is active (and notably the first post on it is one of the en.wikipedia article versions' editors asking for help from people there to improve the article here).  This should be tagged for cleanup and improved, not trashed just because it is unfamiliar and hard to source in English, very stubbish, and desperately needs copyediting and an article lead that tells us something meaningful.  This is a clean-up, not a throw-away.  PS: Credit where due: User:Caknuck noticed the problems with this nomination before I did, though oddly he hasn't commented here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer and question. Yes, I looked. This ... desperately needs copyediting and an article lead that tells us something meaningful. What is there to say that's meaningful? She's one of zillions of more-than-averagely curvacious Japanese girls who are photographed in bikinis. I'm whelmed. -- Hoary 13:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite Japanese WP article (ja:仲根かすみ) contains more claims to notability, including that the subject is a notable tarento celebrity, with several acting and singing credits to her name on top of her gravure idol modelling. Subject also appears to do some voice-over work. We should refer this to WP:JAPAN for expansion/rewriting/translation of the ja: article. Caknuck 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The ja: article is basically just a set of lists. Thrilling! We people at WP:JAPAN have lots of more pressing things to do than write up girls in bikinis, y'know. There's anime, and manga, and more anime, and more manga, and games, and ninja, and more games, and stations, stations, always more stations. Where shall I start translating? Let's take one of the items: WPB-net DVD LIBRALY digital プレイボーイVol.2 仲根かすみ would be in English something like WPB-net DVD library digital Playboy Vol.2 Kasumi Nakane. Wild! -- Hoary 14:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . Not only does this article have no independent reliable sources, just links to her talent agency, the Japanese Wikipedia article doesn't even seem to have any links to independent reliable sources -- just the same link to her profile page at the talent agency linked from the English article. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Thanks to Nihonjoe for providing sources. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong Keep Multiple TV, film, video, DVD, radio, book appearances... A poorly-written article is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to re-write. Dekkappai 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Poorly written" is not the argument being presented for deletion. The reason for deletion is lack of reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The point was, she's obviously a notable celebrity and the article was not properly sourced or written. Keep the article so that it could be improved. Movements to delete articles on Japanese celebrities on the English Wikipedia usually rely on the difficulty for English-speaking editors to find good sourcing of these subjects. Since Nihonjoe has provided a wealth of reliable secondary sources, and has substantially improved the article, I move my Keep to Strong Keep. Dekkappai 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is notable until sources are provided. "Sources are out there" is not a sound argument, because that will not allow the article to comply with WP:NOR and WP:V. Having no sources in English is also problematic because the information in the article is supposed to be verifiable by any user of English Wikipedia. Japanese language sources should be used on Japanese Wikipedia. Jay32183 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nearly impossible for a performer to appear in as much high-profile media as this subject and not have sourcing out there. The fact that we English-speaking editors outside of Japan find it quite difficult to access those sources in no way affects that notability, it means those sources have to be found. That's why I voted to keep the article until it could be properly sourced and expanded. I believe the article should have been tagged for proper sourcing, not for deletion. It is frustrating to me that Japanese Wikipedia, edited by people who are presumably working from good print sources-- magazines, newspapers, etc.-- so rarely cites its sources. Anyway, Nihonjoe has found good Internet sourcing and improved the article beyond any notability concerns. And "No foreign-language sourcing for foreign topics," is an argument for, "If I don't know about it, it's not worth knowing." No point in arguing with something like that... Dekkappai 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's get sources, then make the article. The foreign language thing isn't an "I don't know it" argument, it's a "people who don't speak Japanese cannot verify the article" argument. WP:V says that any user needs to be able to verify content as well as stating a preference for English language sources. Jay32183 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as she's been the main subject (meaning her name has been in the title) of at least 7 of the at least 27 DVD/video releases featuring her, and had eight photo books released (based on the information in the Japanese article and content on Amazon Japan). That's definitely notable by any definition used here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But Joe, gurabia aidoru are 百円 a dozen. For her delightful topographical association, I clicked on this one. Her fans haven't updated her list of books. I don't suppose there's much to say about any of these people beyond what's put out by their PR agencies, and I don't suppose much of it is true. What can one say about them, beyond "Here is the set of factoids that's said to represent her, and she has appeared in this set of forgettable books and that set of forgettable DVDs"? (Or are some of these books and DVDs noteworthy in some way?) -- Hoary 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You say she's notable; can you add some references to the article that take note of her? Interviews, profiles, articles? Who has taken note of her? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I say she's notable based on having at least 7 video releases (in whatever format) where she's the main feature (or only feature) in that release. On top of that, she's had at least 8 photo books released, and that alone makes her notable as the subject of at least 15 published works. All of the works are easily verified, and published by major publishers. She may not be as well known as someone like Agnes Lum (to people in Japan), but she's definitely notable. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not IMDB. We don't just make dossiers of the works people have appeared in. Can you provide any sources with which we can write this article? That's why the notability guideline exists; if there's nothing verifiable to say, we should say nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and only one or two of her appearances in film or TV are even mentioned in the article. I'm not saying she's notable because of her acting career. It's her modeling career that makes her notable, and she has a large number of published (by large publishers) photobooks to back it up, not to mention the videos and DVDs. The dime-dozen models don't have such a large number of them in general. I've expanded the works section to include ISBNs where I could find them. I've also expanded the bio details a bit (with info from the JA article as well as other sources). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, what can one say about books or DVDs such as these? I'm not knocking Japanese cheesecake, but I don't recall reading anything about it. Can you point to a worthwhile description or summary of Japanese cheesecake DVDs or books within any WP article? Is there any reason to believe the biographical "facts" of people like this? And what else is left? The Agnes Lum article you point to says nothing about her gurabia, merely that it was made and is now expensive; Yoko Matsugane, about as famous as they come now, has a couple of lists of "works", a list of biographical factoids (of course including a nod to this stupidity), and a generic write-up that could apply to any of hundreds of these girls. -- Hoary 08:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I try to remove the blood type from articles when I see it as I don't think it's really relevant to an encyclopedic article (at least a general one like you'd find here). As I indicated above, I've expanded the article a bit and expanded the detail on what was there. I should note that until seeing this AfD, I'd never heard of her, but I now believe her to be notable. It's impossible to have that much professionally published material out there and not be notable. She's been published many times through multiple very large publishers (Kodansha, Shueisha, Futabasha, and so on). I don't see how you can seriously argue she's not notable with such a mountain of evidence in support of notability. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * She certainly gets lots of Google hits. And she's been in a lot of books. So I suppose she's more notable than most of the alternatives, though it seems a negligible notability to me. -- Hoary 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I get the impression that she's a sort of living female clotheshorse, the clothes here tending heavily toward lingerie and bikinis. Nothing wrong with any of that. (Indeed, she's one cog in a machine that's worthy of study: How is it that in Japan -- where photographs leaving almost nothing of the the female body to the imagination can legally be published and published, prodigiously -- there's such a huge and I think exclusively hetero male market for chaste cheesecake? But that's hardly an encyclopedic concern.) But I don't discern any achievement, aside (I presume) from an avoidance of skin blemishes and the ability to hold a smile for a long time without it coming to look too fake. Still, if such young ladies as this one get articles, perhaps this one can too. -- Hoary 06:43, 31 July 2007 (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.