Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese female porn stars


 * 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 of the debate was delete. About half of those supporting keeping the article gave no rationale for doing so. The "as per Darwinek" votes (standard disclaimer: not that AfD is a vote) only say "Keep and de-red link these girls" -- there is no reason given for actually keeping. Because AfD isn't a vote, these "votes" are invalid. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Japanese female porn stars
Absolutely no encyclopedic value at all, and most links on article have no articles. Hong Qi Gong 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While it may not be true that this list is unencyclopedic, I gotta say wow. That's a lot of redlinks. Punkmorten 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a delete, by the way. Or move (to user space?). Just remove it from the main namespace. Punkmorten 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. --Vsion 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of redlinks, and it's probably not particularly complete either. Delete as a potentially infinite list. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and de-red link these girls :). -- Darwinek 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per what I've said above. Hong Qi Gong 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and list on WP:DAFT Eluchil404 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Darwinek. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This list really does not serve any purpose.  That's what Categories are for.  In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars.  Hong Qi Gong 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom after making sure any existing article on the list is added to the category. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Only about 15 of the articles existed and were relevant (i.e. there were a few listings for "porn stars" like Subaru!). One of them was missing the category, but that's been corrected. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - However I do not believe this is entirely unencyclopedic. Lists are useful. Nevertheless I believe it would be better to start more articles on the girls and put 'em in the category. After all, as stated previously, there are categories. They function perfectly well as lists for articles. Horncomposer 10:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move. A lot of effort has obviously gone into this list. Look how long the history is. Is there not a Pornography wikiproject that we could simply move this to being a subpage of? As a working-on list. (yes yes, i'm a regular posting anon to keep it out of my history ;P (not a contributor to this list though)) -24.68.65.246 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just move it to WikiProject Porn stars/List of... -24.68.65.246 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Darwinek and the anon above. Silensor 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete before we start getting similar lists for every possible gender/country combination. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, could be useful for keeping track of what articles need to be created, as with List of female porn stars. Entries can always be removed if they're not notable. PseudoAnon 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Jeebus, I didn't even know that other list existed. How are they encyclopedic at all if they are purely just lists?  That's what Categories are for.  I swear, Wikipedia is one of the best porn directories on the web right now.  Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories do not make lists obsolete -- lists can give more information than categories, and can allow you to see places where articles are still needed. When a list does more than a category can, we usually keep both. That's true whether it is porn stars or historians. --Fastfission 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since a list of female porn stars can exist, I don't see why a Japanese one can't exist as well. However, it definitely needs to be polished up. -- Evanx  (tag?) 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm considering nominating the other list for deletion as well. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to nominate it if this useless list itself actually gets deleted. Hong Qi Gong 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aside from making clear which of the members of the list do not have articles, it also has the Japanese characters for all of the names; both of these are things which cannot be implemented with categories and could presumably be useful to someone. It's not doing any harm, so keep. --Fastfission 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm still wondering how a list of porn stars, whether Japanese or not, is encyclopedic, especially when most of that list comprise of empty articles. The Wikipedia community can be pretty pathetic sometimes.  Where are the requests to prove that those names are actual people?  Where are the requests to source the article?  Did anybody even check the articles linked to see if they pass Notability (erotic actors)?  Because many of them do not.  Did anybody check to see if those articles actually link to real people?  For example - AOI (AOI), Shion, Shizuka, Sonobe, Subaru, Yuka - those on the list don't even link to articles on any porn stars.  Hong Qi Gong 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep this please but remove any names we can not identify Yuckfoo 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That would basically be all the red names. Hong Qi Gong 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which would, in turn, be everything that isn't already in the category - making the list redundant. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I get this straight... The list is unnecessary because we have categories of articles... and the majority of these names have no article, therefore they won't be in the category... but they're not worth listing until they have their own article, at which time they will be put in a category, not a list... Do I follow? -- Dekkappai 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I say dont delete it is very useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.86.82.48 (talk • contribs).
 * keep It couldn't be any clearer. Not one |valid valid reason is given in the discussion for deletion. Lists aren't encyclopedic? Maybe not in the traditional sense of an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, and lists are certainly tolerated on Wikipedia. Too many redlinks? This is not a reason to delete an article. This is a reason to work on an article. Either put in articles for the links, or leave the names and unlink them. Or if you're not interested, leave it alone! Some of the links go to the wrong article? Then fix them! "The article is a mess?" Then clean it up! Instead, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, the nominator makes clear that his purpose in nominating this article for deletion is to censor Wikipedia. -- Dekkappai 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've gotten rid of the red links because they are basically unverifiable. We don't even know if they're real people or completely made up.  I've also gotten rid of the links that don't even go to porn stars.  Hong Qi Gong 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is exactly what categories are for. --Golbez 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Every item in a list needs to be worthy of an article? Categories are for articles. HongQiGong states he's out to censor Wikipedia, and blanks the article while discussion is going on. -- Dekkappai 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't blank the article. All I've essentially done was deleted information that was not verified.  Those names could all be completely made up for all we know.  Hong Qi Gong 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Among the "unverifiable" names you blanked (twice so far) were Miki Sawaguchi and Anna Ohura, who not only are well-known, they already have articles. The majority of the others can be verified simply by clicking on the 日本語 link. You obviously made no effort to verify anything, and you requested verification from no one at the article.
 * This argument that a list is the same as a category is as dishonest as the claim that the majority of these names are "unverifiable." I'd be willing to bet the vast majority are verifiable with a simple search. I'd do that myself, and re-sort the list into family name order, if not for the obvious dishonesty behind the request for verification. You simply intend to delete the list.
 * I have posted a restored, revised article, with red-links taken out and put it in a better format. I'd do more, but I get the feeling any further work on this list will be a wasted effort. -- Dekkappai 07:09, 9 June 2006 (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.