Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miki Sawaguchi (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Miki Sawaguchi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre.

First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2006. The arguments included: Japanese Amazon currently still lists 27 DVD, 24 Videos, and 4 photo-books and 290,000 Google hits, none of which is convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards, fails Pornbio & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Fails WP:PORNBIO flat out. -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I am glad to see the size of the Japanese pornographic actresses category has now falled below 100 but it is still unreasonably large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep absent appropriate review of the subject's career outside pornography. Despite what is stated by the nominator, the subject has received (rather brief) coverage in the New York Times, performed at the Knitting Factory, and reportedly appeared extensively on mainstream Japanese TV. No notability has been demonstrated as a porn performer, of course, and much of the existing content should be pruned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The alleged "coverage" in The New York Times is nothing more than a mention in the "listing by critics of The Times of new or noteworthy pop and jazz concerts in the New York metropolitan region this weekend." They denote "highly recommended concerts" with an asterisk; their concert does not even get that. (It's all here.) The rest of the sources, as listed in the contested article, mostly amount to nothing more than porn promos. You want porn? Fails WP:PORNBIO. You want singer/musician/artist? Fails WP:NARTIST. What can we do? -The Gnome (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NMUSIC lists international touring as a factor in assessing noyability, and being signed to a notable label is also an indication of notability, And having an appearance cited by the NY Times as being particularly noteworthy, in a "selective listing" is also certainly an indication of notability. Wikipedia iscertainly infested with fetishized coverage of Japanese porn performers, but Japanese porn actresses are also much more likely than their American counterparts to be notable due to work in other fields in the entertainment industry. ("More likely" here equates to a nontrivial level, not to "very likely".) This calls for a less superficial of sources, particularly Japanese-language sources.Unfortunately, sources like the Village Voice and Downbeat, which often covered Knitting Factory performers, don't have archives online covering the time period involved (sadly, the Voice's current ownership regime has gutted their online archives). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indicators of notability do not count for much in the absence of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. None have been presented in the course of this AfD and I don't believe they exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wolfowitz, I'm with you, especially about the idiots who gutted the archives (grr!), but where's the notability? Japanese porn people do try to go mainstream, perhaps more so than their western counterparts, but we still need dedicated and extensive coverage in sources, per rules. The subject simply does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSICBIO. Mentions in lists (even in major media) of upcoming events do not, on their own, notability make. If the "gutting of the online archives" is what denies the subject its due, then so be it; them's the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2018 (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.