Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoji Ishikawa


 * 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. Yank sox  05:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yoji Ishikawa
The assertions in this article on a photographer of underage cheesecake are hard to verify independently, and he doesn't seem to meet the photographer-related criterion of WP:BIO. -- Hoary 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * comment - Well, he has all of these books published in Japan: here
 * And he gets mention in a few places on the Japanese Wikipedia. Jun-Dai 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. I hope you don't mind my slight reformatting of your comment. The former claim: As you may know, books of cheesecake photos (gurabia) come out in Japan very rapidly. There are so many that even the illustrious folk who dutifully write up articles for guraidoru (bikini models) usually don't bother to list them, but there is a list for the pneumatic Hanai Miri. Note how many books of photos of her there have been in just three years. This list is complete with the "Romanji [sic] title" of each, but the photographer isn't mentioned, probably because very few people care. Some of these photographers &mdash; e.g. Sawatari Hajime and of course Shinoyama Kishin &mdash; are of course known, and perhaps justly so. (I've seen excellent, non-cheesecake stuff by Shinoyama.) But the mere fact that Ishikawa has churned out the photos for a number of examples of this dubious species of photobook doesn't impress me at all. -- Hoary 07:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ..... slightly rephrased 08:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Hoary. I was going to say No Vote until an expert or a japanese speaker came along, but Hoary beat me to it. --Daniel Olsen 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoary is the nominator... ^^; &mdash; Haeleth Talk 10:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless citations are produced to show notability meeting WP:BIO. The article names his "most famous" work: great, now all we need is some solid, reliable evidence that this work actually is notable in its field, and that he is widely known in the field as the photographer for it, and we can keep this article! &mdash; Haeleth Talk 10:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I thought it is interesting because his models are mostly western and from Belgium. In the Belgian context that is quite interesting. Highly disputed on eBay as well. A Sophie book goes easily at 500 USD. Hektor 10:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. SteveHopson 13:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are a few references:, "well-known photographers such as Irina Ionescu or Yoji Ishikawa" - On eBay I found the following sentence : "This is an extremely rare FIRST EDITION Near Mint Conditioned JAPAN PHOTOGRAPHY BOOK from the famous photographer YOJI ISHIKAWA book entitled " MON AME "" You may not like what he does, like you may not like Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, Irina Ionesco or Jacques Bourboulon, but you cannot honestly say he is not notable. Collectors are fighting to death for his Belgian books of the eighties.Hektor 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: please don't quote Fleabay descriptions such as "extremely rare" or "famous". Even via Abebooks, which normally is considerably more civilized, there's at least one US dealer of east Asian books, a member of various serious-sounding organizations, who systematically describes every single book as "rare", "scarce", etc. I never even glance at Fleabay for books, but for cameras, even the Zorki-4 is routinely "rare". But yes, some people are paying lots of money for some of Ishikawa's books. Is this because of their perceived photographic value, or their titillatory (or other) value? As for the comparisons, offhand I'm not familiar with the latter pair, but I am hazily familiar with the Sturges and Mann. They're published (other than by publishers of gurabia, they're discussed, and they're exhibited. And Ishikawa? -- Hoary 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And the other quotes ? you answer only to the Ebay one. We have here a verifiable non-Ebay Internet quote by Violeta Gomez, a notable photograph by your benchmark, since she has done exhibitions and been discussed, which says "well-known photographers such as Irina Ionescu or Yoji Ishikawa" . So should we delete Ionesco too ?Hektor 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your first (Geocities) link lists various photographers and "the Belgian anonymous unpubescent [sic] girls who Yoji Ishikawa photographed twenty years ago" as coming to the mind of the writer (Soren Peñalver, a new name to me) as he views photos by Violeta Gomez (another new name to me). That's all that Peñalver says about Ishikawa. Your second one, by Violeta Gomez, says "the judge confiscated all the photographs and ordered a raid at my house seizing all my prints and negatives, the exhibitions' leaflets, as well as my literary works, videotapes and some art books by well-known photographers such as Irina Ionescu or Yoji Ishikawa." That's all that Gomez says about him. You make the notability of Gomez an issue. It's not fair to judge her merits by the single, Hallmarky photo on display at that second link, but "Violeta Gomez" (of course any "Violeta Gomez") gets just over a thousand Google hits, so she too hardly seems to be all that much discussed. And as for the question of whether to delete Ionesco too, let's stick to the issue at hand: Ishikawa. -- Hoary 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (minor revisions 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep - as notable. STYoto 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: STYoto (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Neier 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO. The fact he has books published is not automatic notability, since there is no indication the books are themselves notable per WP:BK (none have been adapted as textbooks, adopted as a major motion picture, been a best-seller, etc.)  I might note to other editors the fact his models come from one country or another does not meet WP:NOT in any case, nor does the bald claim the subject is notable make it so.  Contributor is an anonymous IP with an odd, if lengthy, history - every article before and after this one is about the French.  Tychocat 14:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this strange way of reasoning that the notability depends from the background of the contributors ? I don't get it ? What about the about the French thing ? Hektor 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I say that notability depends on the background of the contributors? I didn't, and I'm not sure I understand what you're asking either. I refer to policy regarding WP:BK and WP:BIO in specific.   I don't know what's up with the "French" thing - I won't speculate, but you can verify that on the contributor's user history.  Tychocat 09:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your line of argument looked strange to me. Contributors about the French are suspect ? Hektor 13:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Only to a far-right American politician or talk-show host, I think. Contributions about the French are fine. (Or anyway, I hope they are, because I make them.) But actually I've lost sight of who it is that you're both talking about. Not Ishikawa, I think; so let's stick to the issue: whether or not this article should be retained. -- Hoary 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me be more explicit. I think it should stay because it is an interesting footnote in the (awful) history of paedophilia in Belgium. I have found very interesting that this is a pre-Dutroux affair thing (I think that his 'collectible' body of work dates back from the early eighties), but when you look at the work he has done in Europe, it is always pictures of Belgian girls taken in bourgeois houses of Belgium, or in the case of Sophie, of Spanish holiday getaways. Why Belgian ? Is there something specific about Belgium ? Hektor 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. But is it really a footnote in this history? If so, I'd expect to read this; however, Ishikawa is not mentioned in Marc Dutroux, or in the articles about him in the languages of Belgium: (fr:) Affaire Dutroux, or (wa:) Afwaire Dutroux, or (nl:) Zaak-Dutroux. Indeed, Ishikawa is mentioned nowhere in French, Wallon, Dutch or Japanese Wikipedia. And even within en-Wikipedia, his significance to photography, paedophilia, etc etc is so great that not a single article other than a disambig page and a list links to the article about him. -- Hoary 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoary makes a good argument. Not everyone who publishes a book or even many books is notable. Would need some more verification that this this guy is in some way not just another cheescake peddlar. Herostratus 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So delete first and verify afterwards ? Hektor 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right. Nobody can prove that somebody is not noteworthy. There's always a possibility that that person is noteworthy, and that evidence for this hasn't yet surfaced. It's for the advocates of the article to come up with evidence that the person is indeed noteworthy. If that evidence comes after the article is deleted, a superior replacement article can then be created. Simple re-creation of a deleted article is of course grounds for speedy deletion; but if this article is deleted because of a lack of evidence that (i) Ishikawa has published books notable for his contribution to them, (ii) Ishikawa's work is more than minimally discussed, or (iii) Ishikawa has had no substantial solo exhibitions of his work, and if somebody later creates an article presenting plausible evidence that one or more of (i)–(iii) is mistaken, then that new article can be written accordingly and won't be speedied. In the meantime, you may wish to make a copy of the article, and also of Image:Petites_f%C3%A9es.jpg (which is not used anywhere else in en-WP). -- Hoary 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article can be re-created at any me IF it is substanially different from the existing article -- which it would be if it contained references and citations showing that this is actually notable. Herostratus 03:41, 30 August 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.