Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madoka Ozawa


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Madoka Ozawa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable, famous, popular, historical figure in that Japanese industry...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And reliable sources? Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes GNG with the following Chinese sources:, , as well as the Japan Sugoi source cited in the article. The article is well-referenced to sources such as JMDB for information about filmography. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what the hinews.cn article is about and how the source meets RS? Its in Mandarin, were you able to read it before citing it authoritatively as an RS?
 * JMDB isn't a RS and it damages your assessment of the sourcing to assert that it is.
 * Please tell me how this from Japan Sugoi is a RS or sufficient to pass GNG. It has no by-line and doesn't look like a proper RS. In fact, the site runs on wordpress and is licensed under t CC-SA 3.0 which almost certainly means its a personal website.
 * Taipai Times is already there and might be one source but you need multiple sources to pass GNG
 * So, in summary, one possible source and that's it unless you can explain the hinews.cn one better. Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The hinews source says that she was active in the industry from 1997 to 2004 and that she starred in some classic Hong Kong Category III (mainstream) films. (WP:PORNBIO #3 may apply.) It also has some cruft about her appearance and demeanor, and calls her "Ai Iijima's successor." Then there's some praise of her acting skill. It concludes by mentioning that she became a professional writer after her retirement from pornography.
 * JMDB is perfectly fine for basic filmography information. I wasn't claiming it should count toward notability.
 * You are right about Japan Sugoi. My mistake. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, and the sources in the article and posted here appear to be tabloid pieces, not in-depth coverage, thus also fails GNG. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sammy1339. While most of the current references appear to be primary sources, both Hainan Daily and Taipei Times are reliable secondary sources and the relevant articles are non-tabloidesque, significant coverage, enough for a claim of notability and also enough to start building a decent start-class article. Also possibly passes PORNBIO#3 per Sammy1339's analysis. Cavarrone 19:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. a much closer case than usual, but ultimately the RS coverage just isn't sufficient. The Taipei Times piece can't be dismissed out of hand, but it's more about her agent's efforts to generate publicity than the subject herself, and contains little or no significant biographical content. In the absence of a solid claim that the subject at least approaches PORNBIO requirements, and given that none of the supposed next career steps mentioned in the Taipei Times piece seem to have panned out, I don't think the case for notability has been made. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Taipei Times article mentions her agent, but indeed it is 100% about Ozawa. Among other things, the article refers to "the phenomenon that a former porn star from Japan could create such huge buzz among Taiwanese audiences and whether there is a change in social values about sex", her "tremendous popularity" and her "received overwhelming public adulation and huge media coverage" which suggests more coverage is available in native language. This article alone is a solid claim of notability for the subject IMO. Cavarrone  17:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But where is there any other evidence of that "huge media coverage"? I don't even see any other coverage in Taipei Times. This isn't the sort of article where notability is based on a single potentially reliable source, when that source makes claims that should be easy to corroborate -- but aren't. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe they are hard because we are talking about Taiwanese news sources (not the easier to find and check) and because the article is not a week old but dates back to 2003! Yet the article underlines the media coverage even in the summary "... a string of public appearances that won her massive media coverage..." to the point of questioning a professor at the National Central University "whether there is a change in social values about sex". Except Ozawa's agent is so powerful to force then Magistrate Lee Chu-feng to publicly welcome the actress' visit and to declare her presence could boost tourism on his region, I see some notability here. And on the other hand, Hainan Daily is fine in explaining why she is not just a random adult actress but one of the notable ones. Cavarrone 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Maybe" not. The China Post has online archives going back to the relevant data, and it doesn't turn up any result for the article subject's name. Same for Taiwan News. The Hainan Daily piece is just standard website clickbait, and is so superficial that just about its only biographical content is that, after she retired from porn she started a blog. There's just not enough here to support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe not or maybe yes. Online archives are often incomplete, I know it because I regularly use online archives of news sources like Variety or Corriere della Sera and they go back even older, but the older you go less things you'll find. Eg. searching for a very common word such as "actress" in a January 2003-January 2004 period, The China Post returnes only 42 matches while the word "film" gives only 68 results, i.e. irrealistic numbers for a complete archive. To make a comparison, if you makes the same search for the year 2014, you'll find 284 matches for "actress" and 783 matches for "film". Taiwan News is apparently even worst, over the same period of time it gives exactly 0 matches for both the words. I am not saying I am nearly certain these newspapers covered the actress back in 2003, but I am reasonably certain the Taipei Times piece is not deceptive when writing about Ozawa's media impact. About Hainan Daily, if the above Sammy1339's summary  is correct, it says more than the blog thing. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree this time (while I think both of us agree it's a borderline case). Cavarrone  05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are right about that but the reason why on-line databases get weaker with age is that the people uploading to digital conentrate on the stuff that is really important. So not making the cut probably supports the deletion case. I respect the view you have put forward but have you considered that this is a BLP and that we are expected to retain on evidence of sources not the difficulty of finding old ones. Spartaz Humbug! 08:18, 12 September 2015 (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.