Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayame Ikehata

:{{la|Ayame Ikehata}} ([{{fullurl:Ayame Ikehata|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayame Ikehata}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Does not meet WP:PORN BIO Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

:Keep - this article has been part of WP for over a year and has not previously been marked as deleteworthy. It features a notable performer within Japanese erotic film-making. Makitomoda (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I have left my opinion on the invalidity of Wikipedia's home-made, Original Research generated "notability" criteria HERE. And I believe they are particularly invalid in relation to subjects which fall outside the interest and knowledge of the average Wikipedian editor demographic. So, disregarding the home-cooked WP:PORNBIO, what do reliable, secondary sources say about Japanese erotic entertainment? First: Erotic entertainers such as Ikehata have a much higher profile (i.e., are more "notable") within Japanese society than are their U.S. counterparts. In The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, Rosemary Iwamura wrote, "In Japan there is not the same line drawn between pornography and family entertainment that there is in the West. Here in Japan, a more liberated view about sex blurs that line."[http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/7.2/Iwamura.html] So, has Ikehata appeared in mainstream Japanese media? Highly likely, but the policy of the Japanese media of constantly removing good sources from the web, and blocking their archiving, makes this extremely difficult to prove. Second, a reliable, secondary source says that an "average" Japanese AV actress' career lasts one year at most, and produces between five and ten videos in that time. [http://web.archive.org/web/20060516235928/http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/pornborn.html] Ikehata performs in the specialty jukujo ([http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%86%9F%E5%A5%B3_(%E3%82%A2%E3%83%80%E3%83%AB%E3%83%88%E3%83%93%E3%83%87%E3%82%AA) 熟女]) "mature woman" niche, which probably limits the demand for her performance in videos-- but I find no secondary reliable source on the jukujo average. I find in sources such as [http://actress.dmm.co.jp/-/detail/=/actress_id=8094/ THIS], that Ikehata has appeared in about two dozen AVs between 2004 and 2008 (she appears to be currently active). About half of these are compilation re-issues of previous performances, but her first appearance-- 2004-- and her last new appearance-- in 2008-- do show an above-average career time-span. However I do not see that she has been any more prolific than the average Japanese AV actress. Consequently, based on comparisons to the Japanese AV average, I believe she is just border-line between notable and non-notable. So, unless someone can come up with evidence to tip the scale one way or the other, I !vote Neutral. Dekkappai (talk)
• Strong Keep Changing !vote. According to AV-channel.com, a major retailer in Japan, Ikehata's video {{nihongo|Step-Mother's Masochistic Juice 7|義母のM汁7|Gibo no M-shiru 7}}　was the #1-ranked SM video for the year of 2006[http://biglobe.av-channel.com/ppv/std/item_ranking/ch=sm?ym=2006], and still remained a top-seller, at #40 for 2007[http://biglobe.av-channel.com/ppv/std/item_ranking/ch=sm?ym=2007]. This firmly tips the scale, in my mind, to Keep. Specifically, in relation to the SM/incest genre, it satisfies WP:PORNBIO: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature." Dekkappai (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

::*Being a year's #1-ranked SM video doesn't necessarily make it iconic, groundbreaking or a blockbuster. Epbr123 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:PORNBIO. Also per Makitomoda, she is notable. travb (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Edison (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I was leaning towards neutral but Dekkappai's info on her SM video definitely makes her qualify as notable in this field. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It's clear from this and other AfDs that WP:PORNBIO is biased against how the AV industry works in East Asian countries, and that at the very least has gaps in how to show notability for AV actors from those countries. Failure to meet that guideline is not a very convincing reason to delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• In that case, I urge anyone knowledgable of the East Asian AV industry to help develop WP:PORNBIO. What does show notability for AV actors from these countries? Epbr123 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Ah, but that's the very nature of Wikipedia's definitions of "notability", Quasirandom. We are here as editors, not authorities. For us-- or some of us-- to set ourselves up as authorities and to start making up definitions of "notability" violates all the best Wiki-values, such as NPOV and Original Research. These "notability" defitions only serve as a tool for those wishing to help promote their own bias here-- through deletion, or for those seeking Adminship to rack up authoritarian-like decisions. The only good they serve is to temporarily divert Deletionists' time into spinning out crack-pot definitions instead of removing other editors' good contributions. You'll note that since the article now in question has been shown to pass WP:PORNBIO, one of its leading authors has not changed his !vote, but is probably working hard to re-define "notability" to exclude this particular article, while preserving those in which he may have some interest. Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Why did you vote "keep" if you don't believe editors should be deciding who is notable? Epbr123 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2009 (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.