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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep page had prod tag, I changed to afd because while the article is very weak, she was actually one of the most popular bikini models in Japan about 10 years ago, then abruptly abandoned her modeling career Nobunaga24 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove the PROD tag and take it to Afd and vote Keep? Just remove the PROD tag and it is a Keep! --FloNight ^talk 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above. [1]. PJM 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter the kanji for her name (青木裕子) you actually get 500,000 hits Nobunaga24 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, see below since nominator wants article kept and no delete votes yet. (Nobunaga, it's fine to remove a PROD tag without nominating for AfD. Perhaps you know this and just wanted to make sure this PROD got discussed, but I thought I'd mention it just in case you didn't know.) --Allen 02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I added to afd because I hate it when people just remove my prod tag, so I won't do it to someone else :). I figure if somebody wants to delete it, it's probably worth debating a bit. Nobunaga24 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Her picture was everywhere on the internet back in 1997-1998. -- JJay 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep nothing contested. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And what with all this "keep" talk the article as it stands could still be speedily deleted as having no claim to notability. I put a note to that effect on the talk page and ((prod))-ed it instead of speedily deleting it myself, in fact. Here's a bit of a crazy idea - put some of these references into the article. I'll spare everyone the quotation from wp:v that says that the burden is on whomever wants an article included to provide sources. - brenneman^{T}{L} 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've also reversed the "speedy keep" closure as testimony of editors isn't a source. Clearly someone *cough* me *cough* thought this was open to debate, as a prod tag had been added, and no actual citations have been provided to indicate notability, just some hand waving and a google search. And while I suppose that there is nothing saying that someone known for their "large breasts" couldn't have gone on to do work in host sphingolipid biosynthesis as a target for hepatitis C virus I suspect that this is in fact a common name and many of these hits are spurious. Can we see some actual sources, please.
  brenneman^{T}{L} 05:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The closer also un-closed at the same time as me (with no edit conflict?) so sorry that I was a bit narky about the quick close.
  brenneman^{T}{L} 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you could read Japanese, you would know that if you do a search using kanji, that she was (and still is) incredibly popular in Japan and also outside of Japan. She has several DVDs in Japan, and numerous photobooks. A search on amazon.co.jp will show this. As far as fleshing out this article, a) I only stumbled across it today because it was listed for deletion b) since I do most editing at work, searching bikini model web sites isn't really an option as I would probably get fired. This needs to be expanded, not deleted. Nobunaga24 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is exactly why I used prod instead of speedy deletion, I repeat. All I'm asking for is that rather than closing this as "keep" and leaving the article a micro-stub that someone sometime in the next five days puts some evidence into the actual article. If for no other reason than so that I may bookmark them for, ah, research.
  brenneman^{T}{L} 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that I know of the existence of this page, when I can get some edit time where I don't run the risk of a sexual harassment suit, believe me, I will dedicate myself to expanding it. I will make the sacrifice of browsing page after page of scantily clad, buxom Japanese models in order to ferret out more information to add to the general repository of knowledge contained in wikipedia. That is if in the process of research I remember to come back to wikipedia. Nobunaga24 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Terence Ong 11:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Keep, if the kanji explanation noted above is correct (my study of Japanese never went that far). Lankiveil 11:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable enough based on a quick google, asides from everyone else's comments (and the nominator's). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete since I don't actually think she ahs ever done anything that notable. Any woman with large enough breasts can garner a million Googles easily without ever doing anything of any signifciance whatsoever. Not that I care overmuch, but this really does seem to be breastcruft. I suppose it might justifiably be defended per systemic bias, as balancing some of the millions of utterly non-notable American women with large breasts... Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, I'll contest it. She's a girl with moderately large breasts (this is the second draft of my comment) and she appeared in one porn movie 20 years ago. Wow. Non-notable. It's a speedy delete, not a speedy keep. If there's someone who cares enough to add other movies she must surely have appeared in, then they should do so post-haste rather than merely asserting her fame here. -Splash^talk 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article is claiming she's notable for being a famous bikini model, not for being a woman with large breasts or an actor. The only evidence I have of her notability are the Google hits and the word of Nobunaga and JJay, but for me, that's enough to keep a recently created stub. While editors' personal knowledge shouldn't be cited as a source in articles, it seems reasonable to me to consider it in behind-the-scenes judgements like AfDs. (I haven't been here long, so if anyone can point me to any old discussion on that last point I'd appreciate it.) --Allen 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the article says "mainly known for her large breasts.", not "is mainly known as a bikini model". The only passing claim to notability is having, as they say, big ***s. Evidence that can't go in an article is difficult to find much use for, since it is the article and the material in it that is at issue here. -Splash^talk 02:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, it does say that. But what about this official website that Nobunaga added? The "discography" link goes here... she seems to be a recording artist with a major label album, which would make her notable in itself. I'd add it to the article, but I'll leave that to the editors who can read Japanese. --Allen 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that this means she is signed with HMV, if that's what you mean, since I'm not even sure that they are a label. Even if it does mean that, WP:MUSIC asks for two albums on a major label, and there is no proof of that. Allmusic.com has never heard of her, sugesting that probably that release was not, in fact, on a singificant label. -Splash^talk 02:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I was thinking Universal Music Group, not HMV. Again, I can't read Japanese, but it looks to me like a Universal release. And you're right that it's just one, but it's packaged with a DVD and looks like the kind of big pop release that would easily have sold 5000 copies. --Allen 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, I see. Hmmm, that is difficult. But absent any proof of notability (or even, for that matter any proof of the one claim in the article), it remains deleteable, and speedily. -Splash^talk 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps. I bet Nobunaga will be able to shed a lot of light on this when he gets back. --Allen 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, looking at the IMDB listing, I don't think that's her. She would be about 10 or 11 years old when that movie came out, and seeing as it looks like an erotic film, I doubt it's her. Most of her *ahem* movies are "smile and pose" straight to DVD type jobs, not listed on IMDB. The album is news to me, but I'll look at the site. I'm not really a Jpop fan so I don't stay on top of those things (actually I despise Jpop). Nobunaga24 06:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (regretabbly). Having large breasts does not notability make. It's borderline CSD A7 as the entire article is "Yuko Aoki (青木裕子, born February 5, 1977) is a Japanese bikini model mainly known for her large breasts." which doesn't make much of case for importance/notability, does it? --kingboyk 08:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is no sense about her large breasts.--Taichi 05:26, 25 March 2006 (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.