Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koh Masaki

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. postdlf (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koh Masaki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no notable Japanese awards, so use of WP:PORNBIO criteria 1/2 seem unfair to compare against countries which do have awards. He has been mentioned in three notable mainstream gay media (Fridae, Badi, G-men). He has been mentioned four times in Queerclick, which is more than most American porn stars get mentioned in a Japanese porn blog. In my opinion, he has made a notable and novel contribution to Japanese porn; indeed Badi have led with him in two consecutive features. What else can a Japanese porn star do to deserve an article? Dan88888 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that English-language Wikipedia has a bias toward English-language sources and events/people/businesses/etc that are based in English-speaking countries (particularly the United States). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should it? There seems to be no Wikipedian policy to support that bias, no intention for the encyclopedia to be a biased one. I believe that this bias is accidental, as a natural consequence of the majority language of its contributors, and like all biases something that we should all make extra effort to avoid. Dan88888 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG: Significant coverage given main subject of one Badi magazine. Badi and Fridae are both Reliable, secondary Sources, Independent of the subject. While I agree the PORNBIO citeria as currently written are worthy of debate, I can't see your point around GNG. Please clarify. Dan88888 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious notability. The references given do not indicate significant in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yahoo and Google didn't show any notable sources for a biography aside from those WordPress blogs. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yup, Yahoo and Google do not do so well in their coverage of Japanese film stars, much less porn stars. Makes dependence on them as a sole search engines a bit useless in such cases. Perhaps someone with access to Japanese search engines (and they must exist}, will be able to find something either online or hardcopy and offer translations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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.