Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyama Chiharu


 * 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. --- Deville (Talk) 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Miyama Chiharu
Not notable. Would not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent, having won no notable award in Japan, and no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Would definitely fail WP:BIO if that was applied instead. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could find absolutely no English-language Ghits that weren't Wikipedia mirrors of this article (I know she's a Japanese actress, but there should be something).  Even if it's not a WP:HOAX, it completely and utterly fails WP:V. -- Satori Son 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I immediately thought hoax, but some sites do indeed turn up that seem to confirm she was in something called "Lady Karate Fighter VS Rape Maniacs." However, we are still left with the problem of notability, and the article makes no attempt at proving it or showing that she qualifies under WP:PORN BIO. -Elmer Clark 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right: either way there's clearly insufficient notability. -- Satori Son 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:PORN BIO. mathewguiver 13:52, 30 August 2005.
 * Delete I think the actress's unusual physical build (for the genre), and faux-martial-arts gimmick give her some notability, enough to tip the scales in her favor if she came close, but not quite up to passing a notability test. And I do believe it is wrong to use the proposed American notability test in judging Japanese subjects. However, unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, this actress appears to be too obscure to come even close to any reasonable notability requirements. Also, the article does not contain much real information that could not be reflected in a resurrected and expanded List of Japanese female porn stars. Delete and move the information to that List in the future. (A title like "Lady Karate Fighter VS Rape Maniacs" a hoax? Am I to understand people with absolutely no knowledge or interest in the subject are nominating and voting for deleting these articles? Must assume good faith... Must assume good faith...) Dekkappai 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No one here said they believed this absolutely was a hoax. Am I to understand that people who cannot read carefully are assessing and critiquing the written comments of others? Must be civil... Must be civil... -- Satori Son 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, Satori, show where I said someone said this "absolutely was a hoax." What I read was, "I immediately thought hoax." By that comment, I understood that the editor assumed on first glance that a title such as this must be a hoax. From that, I further concluded that he must not have encountered titles like this before. Since titles like this are rife in the Japanese adult entertainment field, I presume the editor has little knowledge and/or interest in said field. I would have spelled all this out in the first comment if I thought it necessary. Dekkappai 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At first, I did think this article might be a hoax, but only because of the bizarre writing style and complete lack of sources (not because of the video title). I'm sorry that I misunderstood your comment and responded boorishly. Respectfully, Satori Son 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, Satori. Happens to the best of us, especially on as testy a subject as this. I admit to having been a bit on the boorish side to our friend Hong here too. Trying to watch myself... Dekkappai 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sure, it may not be accurate to judge a Japanese porn actress based on the American standards in WP:PORN BIO, that's why I specifically mentioned that she wouldn't pass a Japanese equivalent, having no similarly notable work or appearances as outlined in WP:PORN BIO. Meaning, even in Japan, she has no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc.  Even if we are to invalidate the use of WP:PORN BIO based either on the fact that it uses American standards or that it is only a proposal, this person would definitely fail the official WP:BIO.  --- Hong Qi Gong 20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree with you here, on this particular actress Hong. You seem to have found an actress who, to my knowledge and ability to track sources, in no way appears to meet notability standards. Obviously she is verifiable, though, and deserves a place on a list. I still say Japanese (or international) and American standards have to different though. The Amazon test for instance, would fail the vast majority of even notable American stars, and shows that even non-notable Japanese porn actresses (such as this one) have a mainstream presence in that country. Dekkappai 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm actually already giving many of these Japanese porn actresses slack on the notability and verifiability when I mention a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO. If we are to strictly use WP:BIO, many of them would have an even more difficult time passing.  That's why it may not necessarily be to your best advantage to invalidate WP:PORN BIO based on either that it's only a proposal or that it is culturally biased.  --- Hong Qi Gong 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trying to say that there are only two possible ways to establish a Japanese adult actress' notability: By ignoring the vast differences between the two countries and the two industries and applying a test of notability designed for American adult actresses on Japanese actresses, or, if that isn't biased enough for you, by subjecting them to a test designed for general world biography. If American adult actors have been deemed worthy of a special set of notability standards, separate from world biography in general, then adult actors from other countries deserve that same specialized treatment. And how, exactly, are you cutting them slack on verifiability when even the least notable of them have a presence on Amazon? Are you actually saying a listing of a DVD on Amazon is not verifiable? Or are you just preparing your argument for deleting another list on grounds of "unverifiabilty?" The list is already being held to a higher standard of verifiability than many other lists I've checked on Wikipedia, and now any source is going to be disqualified, as what? "Commercial," "personal page," or just "icky because it talks about Japanese porn stars?" Dekkappai 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I do keep repeating - these porn actresses that I've nominated have no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearance, no notable awards, etc etc. So aside from those, what would determine notability?  We've got no criteria here to say, "oh, she's been in 22 DVDs so she's notable."  How?  Why?  Why do 22 Japanese porn DVDs, no awards, no mainstream work, etc etc, make a Japanese porn actress notable, while American porn actresses need a lot more than that to achieve notability?  Even WP:PORN BIO is still a proposal, so unfortunately, until the English WP decide to come up with a WP:JAPANESE PORN BIO, we've got no grounds to judge Japanese porn actresses on a different set of criteria.  I mean, some of the editors reject WP:PORN BIO just based on the fact that it's a proposal.  There's no other notability test then, except for WP:BIO.  It's already pretty generous that Japanese porn actresses are to be considered under an imaginary Japanese equivalent of a proposed notability test.  I repeat - without that, the only notability test left for them is WP:BIO.  There's no other test.  The only thing left is individual editors using arbitrary criteria and personal opinions to judge their notability.  That's hardly good enough.  --- Hong Qi Gong 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as NN. Akradecki 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN by any reasonable definition. --Dennette 02:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This fails even the most liberal interpretations of WP:PORN BIO.  RFerreira 19:02, 5 September 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.