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 No concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hikari Hino[edit]

Hikari Hino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:BIO now more inclusive in that its criteria applies fairly to Japanese porn. 1. Has she won any Japanese awards? They exist don't they?! 2. What unique or iconic contributions has she made to japanese porn? 3. Has she been featured multiple times in mainstream Japanese media? (and no being sold by Amazon or any other seller does not make her notable. Nor is amazon a verifiable source) Article flunks the criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the criteria. Got a free ride on the old criteria, fails the new ones TheBilly (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Japanese and American pornography industries are vastly different and to ignore those differences by applying the standards of one country onto the other is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia, which is what we see going on right at this AfD. The Japanese pornography market dwarfs the U.S. market. In 1994 it was reported that "approximately 14,000 'adult' videos were being made yearly in Japan compared with some 2500 in the U.S."[1]. And, in 1992, "The market for pornographic videos is worth Y400 billion annually, accounting for around 30 percent of [Japan]’s video rentals."[2] Reflecting the vitality of the Japanese AV industry, there are articles on almost 1,400 AV actresses on Japanese Wikipedia. And how is the huge Japanese adult entertainment industry represented in comparison the much smaller U.S. industry here on English Wikipedia? We're going on to 800 articles on U.S. porn stars (not even counting the sub-categories) and yet only 71 of English-Wiki's over 2 million articles are on at Category:Japanese porn stars. Even at the Chinese Wikipedia, with less than 160,000 total articles there are 78 articles on Japanese AV actresses.

"How many awards has she won?" Well, how many adult entertainment awards are there in Japan? Does anyone know of even one? No? I've been editing in the area of Japanese erotic cinema/pornography for two years now, and have yet to find a single firm source on any such awards in Japan. Yet we just assume they hand out awards like candy on Halloween, just because the U.S. adult entertainment industry apparently does? To really determine if Hikari Hino is a notable Japanese AV actress-- rather than set up a kangaroo court to delete the article-- we have to compare Hikari Hino to the average in her country and industry-- not by rules put in place to deal with a foreign country and industry.

According to journalist and Japanese media authority, Kjell Fornander[3][4], the career of an average Japanese AV actress spans about one year, during which the actress appears in five to ten videos total.[5] How does Hikari Hino compare to the average Japanese AV actress? Still going strong two and a half years after her debut, she is currently featured in 56 DVDs listed at mainstream Amazon.com. (Specialty adult services would no doubt list more.) For further insight, how does Hikari Hino compare to a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi? "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..."[6] (bold italics mine).

Hikari Hino is clearly notable by Japanese Adult Video standards. To claim a prolific, long-lived, high-profile AV star like Hikari Hino is not notable because she hasn't appeared in U.S. Playboy, or because she hasn't won an award in a country that is apparently nowhere near as award-happy as the U.S. is to openly invite cultural provincialism into the English Wikipedia. To further chip away at Wikipedia's already meagre coverage of Japanese erotic cinema is to further the cultural bias already present. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not a numbers game or comparison. I believe the wp:bio guidelines are fair. Aren't there popular japanese adult magazines like (a Japanese Playboy) that she's the main centerfold of? Someone else mentioned that JAV stars typically appear on mainstream Japanese television. Can't you cite the times that Hikari Hino has appeared on a mainstream television? Vinh1313 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is the overlap of AV performers and Playboy centerfolds in the US so strong that you would expect a similar correlation to occur in Japan? Either way, it still looks like you're trying to pigeonhole one culture into another. Neier (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not about culture or an overlap comparison. Playboy centerfolds are notable because Playboy is a mainstream magazine with a circulation of 3 million. Is there an equivalent in Japan? You tell me. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy seems to be a magazine for middle-aged gents who like to be told how to spend their money, interspersed with the occasional, heavily "airbrushed" (photoshoplifted) photos both of tits not quite spilling out of bikinis and of straightforward T&A. I can think of Shūkan Gendai as a putative equivalent. It's different in certain ways, however; and an important one is that it seems to eschew porn stars for the most part. A widely stocked example of a mag that does include porn stars is Bejean, but this has a much higher percentage of T&A than Playboy does: it's a well-photographed stroke magazine for the horny young rather than a shopping magazine for the aged. However, I'm no expert. I can assure any heterosexual men here who are iconolagnically inclined that googlesearches will bring numerous uplifting pleasures. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still washing Kent Derricott out of your hair? Surely you're not implying you don't enjoy familing, are you? Ah, the pleasures of Konglish & Japlish... ;) Dekkappai (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekkappai's well-reasoned notable in her field exposition. Neier (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the criteria. Dekkappai should campaign to change the criteria if he wants the article to stay. Epbr123 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai did not have WP:PORNBIO engraved on them. As Epbr123 points out in his comment, these rules are constantly changing. But no matter what their current state, they are put in place to help Wikipedia, not to harm it. An unbendingly literalistic interpretation of these rules is counter to the clearly stated purpose of the rules themselves, the very first words of the very first paragraph of which read, "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Judging from the sources in my statement above, there is extreme imbalance here in representation between the U.S. porn field and the larger Japanese porn field. Obviously fewer articles were created here on the Japanese subjects because there are much fewer editors specifically interested in the Japanese industry. It's natural that the English Wikipedia would lean towards subjects in the English-language world. This kind of unintentional bias is to be expected, and probably unavoidable though we should consciously work against it rather than intentionally further it. I have helped delete articles on Japanese erotic cinema which were not notable in the field, and I will continue to do so. However, using rules which were obviously put in place to deal with the U.S. industry to further that imbalance by deleting articles on subjects which are notable in their field creates cultural bias and is therefore using the rules against their intended purpose, and harmful to Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dekkappai's argument of "notable in her field". Tabercil (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you believe number of film appearances should be re-added to the WP:BIO criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't verify this, but if anyone can make out Chinese (I can't), THIS article seems to say that Hikari Hino (妃乃ひかり) was nominated for an award at a Moodyz AV award ceremony (【AV大賞】Moodyz大感謝祭). Dekkappai (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a Japanese performer and a Japanese award, why isn't there a Japanese article to cover this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinh1313 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are obviously cribbed from a Japanese source-- e.g. the title (in the midst of the article) and the names use kana, rather than being transcribed into Chinese characters. This appears to be a Chinese-language site which follows the Japanese AV industry. Why does this original Japanese source appear not to be online now? I can't answer that any more than I can answer why an award reported in Chinese would make the award any less notable than had it been reported in Japanese.... Dekkappai (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I asked that question simply because I'm skeptical of the reliability of the source/blog.Vinh1313 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, nn, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dekkappai makes a good case for the subject's notability. The guidelines for WP:PORNBIO clearly exhibit systemic bias, in cases like this guidelines should be treated as just that, a guide and not a fixed position. RMHED (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But should every Japanese porn star who's made 39 movies be allowed an article? Decisions like this should be decided on the guideline talk pages, where there would be greater input. Until census has been gained to include this in the notability criteria, the article should be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines themselves state they are to be treated "with common sense and the occasional exception." Removing articles in an area which is under-represented at Wikipedia through strict interpretation of changeable and U.S.-centric rules results in the furthering of that under-representation, and furthering of cultural bias. Or is that another Chewbacca-defense? I've added some more info to the article, including the fact that she's been in Weekly Playboy at least twice, and comparing her career to that of the average AV performer. Dekkappai (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - article cites 9 independent sources, which is more than Hood Mockingbird, yet the latter article appeared on the Main Page today as a DYK item. Johntex\^talk 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Editing mostly Chinese-related articles and in many cases having relied on sources that are in the Chinese language, I'm not insensitive to cultural bias on WP, and have helped save and translate articles in the past that would have appeared not notable if we relied only on English-language sources. Having said that, I'm entirely unconvinced that WP:BIO, specifically the criteria for porn stars, is culturally biased. It's based on three basic criteria: 1) awards won or nominated, 2) notable contribution like starting a trend, 3) and appearances in mainstream media. Unless there's no industry awards in the Japanese porn industry, I don't see how these criteria are culturally biased. Another point that I would like to make is that a lot of articles are made on porn stars that are simply not notable, and a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion shows that the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted in the past, at least judging by their names, are American porn stars. Which only goes to show that WP:BIO has been just as strict, if not stricter, regarding American porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, given the above, apparently there aren't any industry awards in the Japanese AV industry, so yes, that would be a cultural bias. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Then it's truly an amazing feat that Yua Aida was able to win one of those non-existent awards in 2006. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the sources I've cited above show that they actually have far more... But that aside, the point is that the awards appear to be no where near as common as they are for the U.S. industry. I've contacted two native Japanese speakers on the issue. Both have made efforts to help, neither was able to find anything. Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Wikipedia, understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thank you for the compliment, Hong, but I think your compliment points out the bias. The efforts in film-related articles you applaud, I assume, are in the area of Korean cinema. I am in the process of starting articles on highly significant Korean films made in the decades before the current boom in popularity. How do I know they are significant? Because I lived in the country, and am naturally curious and studious about such topics. I asked around. I talked with friends and acquaintances about Korean cinema. I watched Korean TV and looked through books on the local cinema. And now that I'm starting these articles, I find that sourcing on Korean films before the 1990s-- here, in the U.S., in English-- is extremely scarce. But are we standing around looking off in the horizon saying, "Nope, no sourcing for Korean film before 2001... Must not have been a single notable film made in Korea before Oldboy... Delete 'em all!" No, we aren't. But should AfDs on these articles start up, you can expect to see very similar arguments coming from me. And I'm sure you've taken a similar argument with China-related AfDs-- in fact I'm sure I've seen you almost parrot my exact words at some. (No, don't ask me to dig through old times... Deny it if you want.) It seems that it is the subject on which we differ, not the truth behind the argument. Dekkappai (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.