- 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. Deor ( talk) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Kotone Amamiya
- Kotone Amamiya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete This article is a perfect example of why we have the guidelines on notability for pornographic perforers and why such guidelines need to be followed. Otherwise we have hallow citations used to make what appears to be a well sourced article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 18:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete lacking citations, as mentioned above. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:17, 8 April 2018 (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.
- 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. Deor ( talk) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Kotone Amamiya
- Kotone Amamiya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete This article is a perfect example of why we have the guidelines on notability for pornographic perforers and why such guidelines need to be followed. Otherwise we have hallow citations used to make what appears to be a well sourced article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 18:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete lacking citations, as mentioned above. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:17, 8 April 2018 (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.