- 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. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Ami Ishii
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ami Ishii ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite my best efforts to improve coverage about this model in the wake of the pornography biography notability guidelines being deprecated, Ami Ishii does not pass WP:GNG. I have only been able to find minor mentions of the subject, if anything. Of the two sources provided, one is broken and the other is about her husband. Japanese Wikipedia does not offer any new sourcing. Ami Ishii does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thanks for your reviews and assuming good faith in my efforts – and perhaps, if we're lucky, someone will prove me wrong and this article will be improved to meet GNG. Missvain ( talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know what this has to do with the deprecation of the pornography guidelines: there's no indication of that in her article. One would think the sources for this would be most likely to be in Japanese. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is definitely difficult for a non-Japanese speaker to review the Kanji sources available, even with the help of Google Translate. Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 01:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- These are the articles I could find about her. [1] [2] [3] [4] No idea about their reliability. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
-
The Drover's Wife – the type of modeling the subject does is considered soft core porn.
Missvain (
talk) 01:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Is it? There's nothing in the article to suggest it and the claims to notability seem unrelated. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 08:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is definitely difficult for a non-Japanese speaker to review the Kanji sources available, even with the help of Google Translate. Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 01:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not pass GNG as it is written. I think the pron guidelines caused people to accept a whole range of marginal awards as showing notability which I believe is why there is that reference.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- But there's not even a reference to her doing porn, let alone winning awards for it. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 08:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The sole delete vote is contested sufficiently to warrant a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 19:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR, which appears to have subsumed the old pornography guideline in any case, assuming I'm reading things correctly. Anyway, failing that a WP:BASIC pass would be enough, but the significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources is distinctly lacking as searches failed to yield any. Would be willing to reconsider if someone could find foreign language sources that establish it. I reviewed the ones above, the blogs are no good. It's hard to assess the cinematoday reference, but even if that passed, it's just one source, as IMDB is not reliable, that's not enough. 74.73.230.72 ( talk) 02:02, 12 February 2020 (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.