Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mao Kobayashi (second nomination)

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 keep. Majorly (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Kobayashi

I know it got through last time, but seriously - this lacks evidence of notability, is generally unloved, and I'm not sure how well it currently meets verifiability requirements either. makomk 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to satisfy any criteria for inclusion, including WP:BIO, WP:RS etc. Valrith 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it most certainly does meet notability requirements with at least 9 books published and 17 DVD releases where she's the main feature. Bunkasha is a major publisher in Japan, and you can't have that many releases (of both books and DVDs) from a major publisher and not be notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bunkasha is a major publisher? You mean, like Iwanami, Misuzu, etc.? Odd that it doesn't have an article in en:WP if it's major. (Actually I was under the vague impression that it was just a major publisher of cheesecake photo books and similar ephemera, but I may be wrong.) In Japan cheesecake models definitely can and do appear in lots of books and DVDs and still not be notable, other of course than to the hordes of innocent young chaps who buy your wares. -- Hoary 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of publishers from Japan that either don't have articles here, or the articles that do exist are really pathetic. And yes, Bunkasha is a major publisher. Certainly not as large as Kodansha or Shueisha, but definitely major. As for appearing in books and DVDs, that's not the point: the point is that they are books/DVDs specifically about her (or containing pictures of her) with no other people appearing in them. I know you don't seem to personally like the fact that some gravure models are notable, but the fact remains that there are many of them that are notable for the reasons I keep reiterating to you over and over and over and over. If someone isn't notable, I'm fine with deleting an article about them, but when someone has this much published material published by major publishers, they are notable regardless of your personal opinion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a whim, I looked up Bunkasha's site to see what their annual net income was: ¥12,000,000,000 (about $101 million). That's definitely a major company, even if it's on the mid to lower end of major. Given that they only publish in Japan, that's not bad. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a related note, Iwanami has an annual net income of ¥90,000,000 (about $757,000, or about 0.75% of Bunkasha's annual income—not even 1%), so Iwanami isn't even in the same league. I can't find any website for Misuzu Publishing. Do you have a link? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right about en:WP's pathetic coverage of Japanese publishers (as of most other non-anglophone publishers). Still there's a Japanese article, and it shows that my picture of Bunkasha was right. (It shouldn't be confused with at least one other publisher called 文化社, in kanji.) I'm not surprised that they make money hand over fist: there's clearly a huge market for comic books, porn and cheesecake. Misuzu's site is here; like Iwanami, Misuzu publishes a disappointingly small number of books of cheesecake (even non-jailbait cheesecake), though it does publish quite a lot of books to be held with both hands. Is this how you measure the significance of publishers, Joe: comparing their income? If so, I'd guess that this outfit would beat the lot, though I see curiously few people actually reading (or deriving other forms of stimulation from) its products. ¶ But let us return to the minor under discussion. The books about her are so notable that (although I may not have polled its OPAC in the right way) the Tokyo Metropolitan Central Library appears to hold a total of zero (0) copies. (It's not that the library is prudish; it has two copies of the Shinoyama/Miyazawa Santa Fe, hea and all.) It's not a matter of personally liking or disliking the fact that some "gravure models" [odd term] are notable; it's one of determining whether this one is notable. Santa Fe actually made headlines outside the world of girly publications, but such a degree of conspicuousness isn't required: has this Kobayashi person made news, or is her product notable in any way? -- Hoary 04:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whether or not a book is found in a library is not a criteria for notability. The fact that she has 9 published books by a major publisher makes her notable. No other arguments need to be made. That alone makes her notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, and Mizusu brings in about ¥10,000,000 annually (about $84,000). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm shocked to hear how little money Misuzu makes. Joe, will you send off email to them suggesting that they should start a cheesecake/porno subsidiary, or shall I? Yes, you have made your point that this moppet is the sole sales point of nine published books of cheesecake photos that are put out by a company that makes wads of money, even though no evidence has been presented that anybody aside from the customers seems to be at all interested. -- Hoary 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she actually has a Japanese Wikipedia page, and two other languages (Chinese and Italian)... seems to indicate some sort of fame. 132.205.44.5 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like it would satisfy notability criteria - needs some refs though. Suffers from internet publication bias. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "internet publication bias"? -- Hoary 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability is there without a doubt. The problem is the article itself is poor and has little value, needs a lot of work --Childzy ^{(Talk|Images)} 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see . . . we could get more stuff from the sources. Uh, hang on, no we can't: "Mao's profile at momo mint's homepage" is a dead link. The "Theppn" thing tells you stats (e.g. which bottle (AB!) to use for transfusion), but tells us nothing whatever about her achievements. And the third one is ja:WP. So what's to be done? Shall we perhaps translate her titles? For those who don't know Japanese, let me start: "Mao 12 years old", "Mao II 12 years old", "Mao 12 years old summer vacation" -- thrilling stuff, no? She even appears to have mammaries: see this devilishly titillating display. Careful though: she's jailbait! -- Hoary 14:36, 7 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.