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 Consensus. CitiCat ^♫ 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuko Aoki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A year after the first AfD, still no assertion of notability, nor any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails all criteria for inclusion. Valrith 20:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No citations from significant publications. Fails WP:Notability. A Train^talk 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying but failing to understand the logic of the editors arguing keep. The only two references seem to be citing a publication called "Yuko Aoki Laboratory", which does not sound like an independent source to be discussing Yuko Aoki. If someone could find a source in a major newspaper or (optimally) in a book, I'd reconsider, but right now it looks like the sources that we're attributing statements like "known for her large breasts" to are fan sites. A Train^talk 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like people voting WP:ILIKEIT without giving the matter any serious consideration... Valrith 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. She released an album under Universal Music, biggest group in the business. Not to mention the many many covers she has been. There is assertion of notability and coverage of her. She passes, this is a simple case. Mathmo ^Talk 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mathmo: she satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion 5, and only one needs to be satisfied. I am unhappy with the lack of sources but it seems there would be few in English regardless (the Japanese Wikipedia article isn't any better, alas). Tag for sources/citations, but no justification for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'm retracting and going with weak delete. Ithought there were two albums, but there's only one, and the new band she's in has only released a demo. So she doesn't pass WP:MUSIC on that basis. --Dhartung | Talk 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the magazine covers? Even if you want to ignore her music, she still has notability from the many magazine covers. Mathmo ^Talk 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to being the subject of almost fifty cover stories and photo shoots in a large number of magazines in addition to having an album. If someone passes via a combination of multiple notability tests, then they are notable. Maybe not as much as Madonna, but certainly notable enough. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: The article tells us: She has been the cover model for (and subject of major articles in) nearly fifty issues of various magazines in Japan. I clicked on the link, too. I don't see evidence for the claim that she has been the "subject of major articles", in any normal sense. Rather, she's been the model for sequences of, oh, perhaps four-plus pages of photos: grinning, showing some leg, showing cleavage, etc. Have I missed something? If I haven't, she's just one more of thousands. -- Hoary 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TV appearances, commercials, magazine covers, musical album, etc... All with major companies. Notable. Dekkappai 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She's made one album, but hasn't done anything else of note. -- Hoary 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough WP:RS coverage to support a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has started to acquire a certain charm. My favorite: On December 16, 2002, Aoki revealed a chocolate covered statute of David Beckham in Tokyo to generate publicity. Presumably it's a statue, not a statute. Where did she reveal it? (Had it been lurking between her famed mammaries?) Publicity for Beckham (did he need yet more?) or for herself? If the latter, was eligibility for an en:WP article one consideration? Etc. -- Hoary 05:50, 2 August 2007 (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.