Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulia Nova


 * 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yulia Nova

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Epbr123 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in Japan, Plus in comparison to other pornstar bio, it's well written.
 * EDIT. Plus, looking at your talk page, I noticed you are a former supporter of Sharday, I think that we should all tried to include all porn star biography, especially those that are famous in their respective region, and big bust nonetheless. I would personally hope that this is not WP:POINT, but I will for now assume good faith. In any case, Yulia Nova is a famous softcore porn model in Japan. Anyway, Shame that I did not know about Sharday's AFD. George Leung 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Has she appeared in any reliable and independant Japanese newspapers, magazines or TV programs? Epbr123 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and SCORE are not any more independent from each other, and is the same with Bachelor Magazine. On that note, do remember about geographical difference. Even though she is a caucasian, she is notable in Japan. I hope you had read about the geographical difference. (On a side note, this is about as bad as teh AFD on RX-78 Gundam)George Leung 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) PS: Use WP:PORNBIO next time.
 * She also fails WP:PORNBIO. Models are not independent of the magazines they work for. Epbr123 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I will still say 'keep, since I see it as notable in Japan. However, I am wondering what should we do for Japanese based porn stars, since In japan, there's no such thing as "independent"? I am asking this not mainly for this article, but for future references. This is because everything in Japan has no such thing as independent, and even referencing Gundam, if not from approval from Sunrise/bandai, can onyl be done in "similarities" method. I am not saying I am blaming this on Wikipedia, but whether we should accomodate Japan's many unwritten rules that dominates their business (which they have a habit on, such as the restriction on HP in cars, which can't be higher then 280), or whether we let Japanese people knows that this is Wikipedia's policy. On a sidenote, is this good idea to delete relevant pages on Japan, for example? George Leung 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure you know what I mean by independant. If a non-pornographic magazine featured an article on a porn star, that would count as independant coverage and would establish her notability. For example, Jenna Jameson is a very notable porn star as she regurlarly appears in non-pornographic newspapers. Epbr123 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a proper argument for keeping that will hold water, cite sources to demonstrate that this person has been documented in depth in multiple published works by people independent of Yulia Nova. Currently, the article cites no such sources, it only pointing to the subject's own web site, and you haven't cited any in this AFD discussion either.  Uncle G 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The independence requirement is that the sources be independent of the subject xyrself and of each other, as explained at Notability. In other words, it excludes autobiographies, advertising, press releases, and so forth.  It doesn't exclude biographies written by other people, although such biographies may be excluded for being unreliable (as the potted biographies that accompany picture sets in pornographic magazines notoriously are).  The important thing is not where this person's pictures have appeared, because that provides no source material for an encyclopaedia article.  The important thing is how much is reliably and independently documented about this person's life and work in already published material.  It has yet to be demonstrated that anything at all has been.  Uncle G 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem is the difference of culture between Japan and here, and how they will as impotant and what not. Oh well, AFD still have 4 days left, so we will see. Even if it got deleted, I guess it's "cie la vie" George Leung 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Importance has nothing to do with it. The issue is notability, and that is demonstrated by multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the subject.  It's up to you to find and to cite such sources.  Don't wait for someone else to do it. Uncle G 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no assertion of notability other than being top heavy. She is no more notable than any minor model. --Kevin Murray 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PORNBIO &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  23:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per BIO/PORNBIO: lack of references, no significant media coverage outside limited porn mag appearances, relatively small number of works ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-known model in Japanese media. Bachelor magazine is a long-running big-bust publication in Japan, and Yulia Nova has been featured in it. Tokyo Topless is a major big-bust website in Japan which updates about once a month, and features ethnic Japanese models almost exclusively, yet has featured Yulia Nova. She was also the subject of a minor news item when her photographer lobbied against Google. Multiple video appearances, multiple magazine appearances, this is an article on a celebrity, not a vanity page. To use "Notability" to delete articles on minor celebrities is an abuse of the term. Dekkappai 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * She has had no independant and reliable coverage. Please remember WP:AGF. The minor news item was about her photographer, not her. Appearing in porn mags and porn sites does not establish notability. Epbr123 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By that argument, appearing in films does not make an actor notable, and appearing in runway shows and fashion magazines does not make a fashion model notable. That doesn't make much sense when you put it in context, does it? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want anyone who's ever been in a porno or porn mag to be included in Wikipedia? Epbr123 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not every movie star, fashion model, etc is notable. However, there are many that are simply because they appeared in a film or fashion magazine, or a number thereof. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the policy you are looking for is WP:ALLORNOTHING. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you do agree that appearing in porn mags and porn sites does not establish notability? Epbr123 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I think it depends on the magazines and/or movies, and the context. The larger the circulation, the more the magazine or movie contributes to that person's notability. Thus, being in an internationally distributed magazine and/or pornographic movie (such as Playboy, Voluptuous, etc) would contribute to a person's notability the same as an internationally distributed movie would. If they were in a movie that had significant impact or circulation in their country, then they are obviously notable. If you had bothered to look, you'd know that WP:ALLORNOTHING is an invalid argument. In summary, everything contributes to notability... even pornographic works. However, the impact depends on their circulation and acclaim. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where on WP:PORNBIO does it say an appearance in Voluptuous is valid criteria? Epbr123 10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekkappai. Dismas |(talk) 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Dekkappai's discussion.  --Oakshade 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why?? Are you another one who wants anyone who's ever been in a porno or porn mag to be in Wikipedia?Epbr123 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Prolific and popular model in Japan in very popular genre. And regarding the "Are you another one..." comment, please keep it civil.  --Oakshade 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know she is a prolific and popular model in Japan? Epbr123 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith by Dekkappai's stipulation. I'm not a Japanese reader, but I'm not going to discount anything written about her in that language just becuase I can't see or read it myself. --Oakshade 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, ok Epbr123 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dekkappai. As well, I can personally vouch for her Yulia's images coming up on a frequent basis on the various big-bust related Usenet newsgroups. Tabercil 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where on WP:PORNBIO does it say that is valid criteria? Epbr123 10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, but at least I'm not arguing about her being not notable on the basis of WP:IDONTKNOWIT (hint, hint). Tabercil 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing on the basis that she doesn't pass any of the notability guidelines! Epbr123 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekkappai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Hain (talk • contribs)
 * Any particular reason why you agree with his flawed arguments? Epbr123 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekkappai.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia should include anyone who's ever been in Bachelor magazine or on the Tokyo Topless website or has been in more than one porn movie? Epbr123 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekkappai. She seems to meet WP:PORN BIO and regular Wikipedia biography guidelines. --Myles Long 23:17, 22 March 2007 (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.