Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka


 * Delete - Has anyone seen the infobox image ? ... Her eyes really stand out!, Nice knockers but they're not a free ticket to an article which is rather quite a shame!, Sorry back on topic clearly fails PORNBIO & GNG, I'm surprised I haven't !voted Keep actually.... – Davey 2010 Talk 01:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD isn't a place for you to comment on a person's body. The language in your vote above can be clearly construed as offensive by many Wiki users. "Knockers" is not the appropriate term for breasts. Your discussion is not in the tone of a Wikipedia editor where we are all required to strive for a neutral POV and make a place that is welcoming to everyone regardless of gender, sexuality, race, politics, religion, nationality, etc. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh shit silly me, Having a bit of a laugh here is forbidden here eh!, The point of the !vote was large breasts doesn't give you a free ticket to an article, There's nothing offensive about the !vote whatsoever. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your vote is fine. It's the language in the vote that's in question. I'm not saying what you wrote is "forbidden." I oppose censorship. I'm saying it's in poor taste and poor judgement and that AfD is the wrong forum for joking around about a woman's body and probably also for swearing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness though, Hitomi hasn't exactly put herself in a job position to evade such comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether that's true or not, the AfD isn't the place for those kind of comments. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - In hindsight I perhaps shouldn't of made that comment and I apologize for it, I took the opportunity to have a laugh and clearly it's backfired - as would probably tell you I never like to offend anyone not ever - I just thought I'd have a bit of a laugh and that was it - If I knew it was going to offend and cause this much crap I would never have said it, Anyway I apologize if I've offended you's/anyone here. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. I appreciate it. I was just going through women's bios on AfD to see if they were savable... I never expected to get into a discussion either. I'm not upset with you personally! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries :), Haha I don't think any of us did, Well lets be honest I guess you should be but anyway it's all in the past - Onwards & upwards as they say :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - thanks, mate. And no hard feelings; we're good. Now, where do we go from here with this article? Can we salvage it or not? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well ofcourse I disagree entirely but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, As for swearing - It's a bad habit (I swear on here and IRL), Anyway thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I disagree that there are no RS; see DMM.com. I worked at a naval hospital for 11 years, and I can hold my own in the swearing department, thank you very much. But I am taken aback that you would make a sexist remark,, at an AfD discussion; please STOP. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - The !vote was more or less a laugh but whatever I've struck it anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The DMM.com page is quite obviously not an independent, reliable source; it is, instead, a vendor page offering Tanaka's porn videos for sale/download. Many thoroughly non-notable self-published writers have similar pages on Amazon, and they do absolutely nothing to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep And start Private Teacher - The Teacher is a J-Cup Performer 29 ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this woman is seen as a joke. I don't care what her job is, or how she looks: she's a person and deserves to have her article discussed in a neutral way., I'm surprised to see you making jokes, too! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * She is indeed a person and deserves to have her article discussed in a neutral way. What makes you think I thought she is seen as a joke or making jokes as her expense? The joke was more on the idea of having articles on every porn film ever made, rather than her. I'd support an article on My MILF Is A Former Gravure Idol too if enough reliable sources could be found!♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well, I see where you were going with that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep She has a large enough cleav- uh, coverage of reliable secondary sources that passes WP:GNG. As mentioned above, it appears that DMM.com is sufficient enough. JAG  UAR   16:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? More jokes about her breasts? I thought we'd covered this. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * DMM is a vendor site offering Tanaka's videos for sale as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz points out above. The coverage is neither independent nor substantial. Just a catalog of available videos. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it at least verifies her profession ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The puerile locker-room jokes after multiple objections seem to me to be inappropriate and demonstrating a pretty sad lack of decorum. Please remain WP:CIVIL. Storkk (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a fine line between light humour and something offensive to a BLP and "puerile locker room jokes" . I personally have not said anything offensive about her as such in light of the concerns of Megalibrarygirl so if that is directed towards me I take offense at that. More problematic is a snotty-nosed busybody like you coming along with a condescending, holier than thou message and brandishing the old CIVIL card. Sexist comments might have no place at AFD, but I've said nothing of the sort which is "uncivil" or offensive. Somebody questioned the source, I simply said it does actually verify it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice. Storkk (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not nice to come along and throw the "civil" accusation at people who are being civil either, especially when you've called the comments "purple" (which, ironically, is a breach of WP:CIVIL), so perhaps your initial comment could have been better phrased so as not to rile people? – SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and Can we please move all non AFD related comments to the talk page. None of this really belongs here, which should purely be commenting on the actual content. I don't mind people asking others to refrain from commenting on certain physical features, but when somebody is going to apparently call me "puerile" or "uncivil" I take offence. Perhaps you don't batter an eyelid at films like J&L - Two Pairs Of Huge Tits Take Real Creampies and Gentle lesson in cums Busty Female Teacher but this is an actress who makes a living largely from her assets, so you can't really complain if people are going to comment on that or at least ;-) at some of it. This isn't some respectable politician or writer we're dealing with, but I agree we should at least tr to ignore the actual subject and comment neutrally on sourcing etc. Anyway, for the sake of the AFD, I think it's best that comments are avoided here. As far as I can see there is enough coverage of this "actress" in reliable Japanese and news sources.♦  Dr. Blofeld  06:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * in your opinion, comments like "large enough cleav- uh, coverage" (after multiple objections by multiple people) are mature and professional, and "puerile" is too strong a word? Hm. I don't think I need to comment further, and if you think you need to move my comments to the talk page, go ahead. Storkk (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said they were, so please don't try to smear me by innuendo. Those comments were no, however, uncivil to any other editors: yours was, so it's a tad hypocritical to insult others while throwing the civility card around. I don't think I need to comment further. – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In comparison to the hardcore sexual stuff Tanaka does, yes, puerile is a strong word. You could argue that comments about her breasts are a "tad juvenile" and have no place at AFD, I agree, but given her filmography titles I think I'm excused for a ;-) at covering them on wikipedia. I've removed my Private Teacher 29 mention anyway to avoid further comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * nobody here has breached WP:CIVIL. My comment was an attempt at light-hearted humour and if it caused offence to anyone, I apologise. Had I known people would have been so politically correct and humourless here I wouldn't have made the comment. I think the article should be kept since it is backed up by multiple reliable sources, so I stand by my point. Even if DMM isn't sufficient, then a quick google search shows multiple Japanese sources, including her biography. JAG  UAR   13:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of breaching WP:CIVIL, I was asking everyone involved to keep the policy in mind as the discussion was turning south. I pointed out that you made a silly and juvenile comment (yes, using the term puerile) after multiple people had already expressed objections to that type of comment, for which I got called a "snotty-nosed busybody". Yay me. Now if would elaborate on the finer distinction between "juvenile" and "puerile", I will read it with an open mind. But otherwise, I'm pretty much done with this discussion. Storkk (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the sources in the article are not necessarily the best, there are others that can be used (see Google books and general i'net searches). To me that shows the lady is notable enough as far as the reliable sources go. – SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You really need to cite your sources for your comment to have any validity. Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * there are several links at the top, following the words "Fins sources". I suggest you take the basic step of clicking on them and doing some basic research. My comments have as much validity as they always do, and I care not one jot whether your inability to find basic information means you are unable to verify the, or not. I've also made a basic media search on the NexisLexis news database and found several other searches, and no, I won't cite the, either – you'll have to AGF, which seems to be in short supply here. – SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unevidenced assertion then. I'm sure the closing admin will give this the weight is deserves. I have never seen an argument before where asking someone to cite sources is rebuffed with demands to agf. Seems an assumption of BF on your part maybe. Spartaz Humbug! 08:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bollocks – I've told you where to find the information. Do some basic research like the rest of us. The closing admin may well take into account your bludgeoning of comments left by good faith editors and your inability to do some basic searches and your lack of judgement in opening an AfD where one doesn't need to be opened. – SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The irony of your demanding I AGF while you are uncivil to me is not lost but in fact I made two comments in this discussion politely asking users to cite the sources they are relying on. Maybe you should AGF yourself? Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It looks to me (although I may be wrong), that she's been mentioned multiple times in reliable sources (such as her name being a part of Google News searches of her name, where it's clearly about her and not someone similarly named). This article that we have now is far from the best. However, she appears to be somewhat notable at least. I'm deliberately choosing not to comment on the above back-and-forth. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * mentions do not meet the GNG. Which sources do you think meet the criteria for having multiple detailed reliable secondary sources? I couldn't find any and neither could users experienced in porn deletion discussions. I'm also struggling to find the policy on WP:Somewhat notable. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)