Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese bondage models


 * 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. Although I agree with some of the "keep" !votes that the subject is potentially notable, there is currently not enough material for a stand-alone list. The single current entry can easily be merged into Japanese bondage. In addition, I agree with that the subject of a list would need to be defined clearer. In all, I find 's argument most compelling. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Japanese bondage models

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * ''Please note historical version of article, here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Another poorly-sourced, poorly-defined list that needs to die. Declined PROD. p b  p  22:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as sadly no evidence of notability, If anyone DOES improve & source this I'll probably change to keep – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, no indication that this represents a distinctive field or that these models specialize in it, or that there are enough notable ones to justify a list. The list's intro links to Japanese bondage in an attempt to provide some focus, but neither included model's article does more than mention in passing that some of their work was in bondage themed porn. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of bondage models by decade. Nationality doesn't seem to matter.  There is a page for Japanese bondage so perhaps its different than regular bondage.  I don't know, care, or have any plans on reading into that though.   D r e a m Focus  01:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep If there are more than two names on the list, and Japanese bondage is a distinct thing different than regular bondage, as it seems to be, then its a legitimate list page to have.   D r e a m Focus  23:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no reason for deletion. If you want sources, add them yourself. Just google "actress name" + bondage and you will find video sources. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those aren't reliable... p  b  p  20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:Reliable. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * PBP, any (commercially distributed) videos are reliable sources for their own content and credits... But let's not get distracted as the sourcing isn't really the relevant deletion problem here, which just makes this keep !vote moot. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the relevant deletion problem? NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lucky for you, I've already posted a comment explaining it. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why people comment on topics that they apparently do not understand or have any interest in learning about. Nevertheless here is the article to establish 'relevance': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawashi NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And nothing in that article establishes that this kind of modeling constitutes a distinct specialization or subindustry or that there are enough notable models in such a specialization to justify a standalone list. Which is what my delete !vote above stated. Nawashi doesn't even make a case for its own notability (and should probably be merged to Japanese bondage), and what few blue links the article has are, with two exceptions, to disambiguation pages or other unrelated articles. To paraphrase, I don't know why people pretend that they've made a response to an earlier comment when they haven't done anything to actually address the substance of that comment. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no substance. It represents a distinctive field. The models specialize in it and there are several notable actresses. As I already said, as someone who neither shows willingness to learn or any interest in this topic you are not in the position to judge about such things anyway. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Japanese bondage is a notable thing. Being a fetish model (where bondage model redirects) is a notable thing as well. Note that it is not a random intersection: there is no (say) Irish bondage as a separate topic, while Japanese bondage is. List entries can be sourced. No policy-based reason whatsoever in the deletion rationale. -- cyclopia speak! 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the names that have been included on the list were not categorized as bondage models or described as such with reliable sourcing. There is no parallel category. There is no reliably sourced case made that this specialty exists within the Japanese erotica industry, and no reason to impose Western standards on a non-Western culture. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That there is no parallel category is irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
 * There are reliable sources speaking of Japanese bondage models as a specialty, e.g. . Probably more can be found in Japanese-language sources, I guess.-- cyclopia speak! 15:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and impose a zero tolerance for BLP viiolations policy on this page. Seems notable enough as a subject albeit only one person on the list♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note related AFD pending at Articles for deletion/List of bondage models by decade. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the fence — clearly a notable topic. List format may be useful. However, this list was always sparsely populated and has lately been pruned to a single entry. There is are two deeper problems with this particular list, though. First, reliable sources are very hard to verify because: (1) most sources are not in English, (2) most searches for sources will find lots of SPAM because of the nature of SEO for porn, and (3) even though a video work's title credits are generally considered reliable sources for the performers appearing in them, this would be extremely tedious and hard to verify on a list like this, or even in a performer's own bio. I haven't checked the latest on BLP interpretations of film credits, but practically, it would be very hard to build a well-checked list of bondage models by looking at film credits even if this is sufficient. To save the most important for last, per some of the comments made when pruning list items, even in the articles about their careers these models were not sourced as bondage models per se, but rather performers who have appeared in bondage productions. Whereas specializing as a bondage model may well be a notable piece of Japanese popular culture, having appeared in a bondage production is not really a useful inclusion criterion and tends to make the list trivial and prurient. If by the end of this AfD nobody has proposed a viable way to build out this list that is reasonably inclusive and sourced, I would agree to delete in favor of a category, or nothing without prejudice to later re-creation — not because it can't be sourced or the subject is non-notable, but because there is not enough here, and likely there won't ever be enough here to have a list article of even minimal quality. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there is only one reliably sourceable entry, then there is just no case for a separate list article, which would look ridiculous to any reader in this state. Include any such list in the parent article until there are enough entries for a spin-off list per WP:SS.  Sandstein   11:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikidemon, but why they should be reluctant about it escapes me. A bondage model is one who appears predominantly ot notably or characteriscally in those rules, and a specific source for the term as applying to the person is not necessary. I don;t know what makes a list like this prurient in a negative , whether selective or inclusive--the topic is one formal of sexualized display, and WP is not censored. If people find some of the content exciting, it is generally because the find the corresponding parts of the RW exciting.  DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you aware of our WP:BLP policy, DGG, which absolutely does demand reliable sources for an article such as this, especially given that being a bondage model is a highly contentious form of employment. And the gulf between censorship and enforcing our BLP policy is so huge that I am amazed you could confuse the two, and not sure why you want to bring up the censorship argument, other of course than to try to allow wikipedia and its editors to evade their BLP responsibilities with a censorship red hering argument. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Exactly as i implied, you are using your interpretation of  BLP policy as an excuse for removing sexually related material. I call that censorship. I recognize that those who wish to censor usually try to avoid using the word. If harm is being done to a specific person who does not belogn on the list, the item can be removed.   DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. At this time, the list has only one entry and it lacks source. And anyway, this is a WP:BLP list and sources in it must be stringently enforced. BLP is a sensitive field in which reverting the addition of unreferenced info is an exception to the notorious 3RR policy. Show no mercy. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sandstein and nom. If the one source piece of info is so vital it should be added to Japanese bondage. I'd also note that there's a difference between women who model in Japanese bondage and bondage models who happen to be Japanese, so the list is poorly defined as well as being under-populated and poorly sourced. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, I suppose in theory this could be a reliably sourced list, but the sole entry at the present time is a BLP and it is not supported by a source. Once that is removed, there's nothing left to save.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
 * 'delete a list with one entry is a nonsense and if properly sourcing entries is a blp problem then I can't see the point of this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:42, 22 August 2014 (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.