Jump to content

Talk:AV idol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Male Idols?

[edit]

Are there no Male porn stars or models in japan? If so why don't any of them have articles? And if there are, why don't they have any articles?Kairos (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many many AV idols worthy of articles. Unfortunately Wikipedia plays a "notability" game which ensures that subjects who are covered in media (even mainstream media), but whose coverage is extremely difficult to locate because they are overseas, in foreign languages, and/or are not readily available on the Internet, are deleted. About Japanese male porn stars: The Japanese AV industry is heavily female-centric, that's just the way it is, however there are some well-known male porn actors. The only two articles I'm aware of already here are Chocoball Mukai and Micky Yanai. Feel free to start up articles on other Japanese male porn actors, but please source them as well as you can, and be prepared to fight their deletion. Now-- do these male stars belong at this article? My understanding of "AV idol" is that they are, by definition, female. I could be wrong. I am aware of no male "gravure" videos or AVs in which the male is the star. (Admittedly I don't look for this, so, again, I could be wrong.) Feel free to add to the article, especially any valuable sourcing you may have. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an example on the difficulty of playing the "notability" game with Japanese subjects-- I was preparing an article on Serena Kozakura, an idol who made mainstream news articles in English last month when she won a trial based on her bust-size. (An ex-boyfriend claimed she had crawled through a window to get into his apartment, it was shown that the model's voluptuousness prevented her from accomplishing this feat.) Last month I had three articles from Mainichi Shimbun with which to source the article. Two of those articles have since been taken off the site, they are not archived at the site, and they block "Internet Archive" from archiving the articles. So, basically, tired of fighting the "notability" game, I just give up on starting an article on this notable subject at Wikipedia. That said, if you're interested in the subject, the Wiki articles on the Japanese gay magazines Samson and Badi might provide you with leads. Happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have no knowledge of japanese male porn stars(gay or straight) and was asking out of curiousity. When I was looking up bakkake(sp?) and relaised that I couldn't find any. Due to the nature of how wikipedia works I don't have much hope to change things. Though, isn't there a japanese language version of this page and stuff? Kairos (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem-- we do have an article on Bukkake. Right, the Japanese Wiki has literally hundreds of articles on AV idols... Personally, I have no interest in male stars, so I'm not going to be researching the subject. If you're interested in the subject though, I do encourage you to look around for sourcing-- good sourcing seems to be the best weapon against deletion. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the so called underage junior idols who are actually av idols. There is this underage girl who's name is "Chiharu" there are movies out where she is having sex, I found this on a regular junior idol/adult video site. This is when chiharu was an underage teen and this link proves it. http://jporn-in-yourfilehost.thumblogger.com/home/log/2008/24/chiharu---the-japanese-leg.html. Not to mention the other junior idols do go nude, many show their bottoms without thongs...so they really are AV stars (according to Japanese law--no nudity).I say junior idols should be banned they are nothing more than AV stars--Truthfulchat (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy

[edit]

There was a large list of names of likely living people here which were not reliably sourced as AV idols. This is a violation of our very important WP:BLP policy which has been written to protect the living people we write about. I have removed all the names as BLP non compliant. Please reliably source and return with an inline citation so that everybody can verify that these people really are AV idols. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As currently written the BLP policy does not mention suspension of BLP enforcement if there is discussion or an RfC on the BLP talk page. And with good reason. We cannot ignore the BLP concerns of the living subjects we write about due to editor discusions. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought the RFC made clear that what you think is BLP policy is not BLP policy. But your consensus of one says otherwise, so I must be wrong. My apologies. People who want to wank to Japanese porn will just have to look to websites with no standards whatsoever.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation pointer. Also review current WP:AN/I discussion on this topic. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still claiming Milowent that nobel laureates are as contentious as porn workers? That is your argument? The Rfc has not made clear that my very simple and tot he letter interpretation fo BLP is wrong either. But if you think your interpretation of some talk page discussion trumps very real concerns about the living people we write about I can tell you that you are wrong. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim nobel laureates are as contentious as porn workers. Do not slander me by claiming I did.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point that unsourced inclusion of a name on a list of a porn-related topic is "potentially contentious" thus subject to removal-and-no-restoration-without-sourcing (via BLP) is valid. And that the unsourced Nobel laureates list, being uncontentious, is not subject to such treatment — although technically such things should be sourced out per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (from the BLP policy, emphasis removed). Carrite (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is already debated at the RFC. Let's discuss this there. Once that is solved in general, then we can act on specific articles. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general BLP issue aside, this was nothing but a laundry list of fairly randomly selected examples, with no indication that the entries reflected either reasonable selection criteria or sourced evaluations of significance. Lists like this don't belong in any articles. If you want to say that Performer X is one of the most notable/important/popular/prominent performers for a given decade, find and cite a reliable third-party source that says so. This isn't at all a controversial/contentious point; it's WP:RS 101. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making that claim under BLP or not? If you are, the issue is under discussion at the RfC. If as a content question, I do believe it is a reasonable list to have, but as with many lists in subjects like this there is some question of whether to do this as prose or lists, what the inclusion criteria are, and whether the list items meet that. In many articles about entertainment or pop culture phenomena across the encyclopedia, editors feel it is useful to have a representative if not comprehensive list of examples. You point out at AN/I that four list members are not really that notable. Would you care to remove them, or go over that here? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under BLP, under RS, under V, and under WP:LIST, not to mention NOR and SYNTH. This seems to be nothing more than an arbitrarily selected list of genre performers without coherent selection criteria, mislabeled as identifying of demonstrated higher-level importance. I spot-checked entries and found none of them properly supported. There isn't anything resembling a reasonable case for keeping this list. We don't even have decently defined criteria for what should be on this list, which pretty much establishes that it's meaningless, useless, and fundamentally unencyclopedic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AV idol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that AV idol be merged into Pornographic film actor. "AV idol" is pretty much the Japanese-language equivalent of "porn star", and is an inappropriate term for use in an encyclopedia. The material in this article which is genuinely reliably sourced can easily be condensed and managed within the target article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't totally agree, but I appreciate your point. Surprising someone didn't toddle in and crow about how "it's different in Japan!"
Keeping both those thoughts, though, I see no reason not to fold AV idol into Pornography in Japan, seeing as
  • they already have a photo in common (which is unillustrative and apparently generic)
  • both are largely a bunch of unsourced fancruft lists
  • anyone interested in one article (whether stodgy academic or fanboy wanker) would probably benefit from the other
Anyone care to put in the nomination?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on AV idol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AV idol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list

[edit]

The "Notable AV idols" lists were just removed from the article by K.e.coffman and restored by me. The removal was justified on the basis of being a "link farm & OR". It seems that K.e. is justifying the removal of the linked entries under the first term ("link farm") and the unlinked entries under the second (original research). However, WP:CSC explicitly states that one common criterion for inclusion in a list is that "[e]very entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia", and WP:LINKFARM suggests that "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: [...] Internal links, except for [...] lists for browsing" [my emphasis]. Since this article is not merely a collection of links, I believe it is possible to justify keeping the lists provided that every entry has an article that identifies, with proper citation, its subject as an AV idol (which citation could be duplicated here in this article). So, K.e., do you object to the mere existence of such lists (as your removal would seem to suggest) or simply the way they were presented in this case? If the latter, how do you think it could be done better (apart from citations)? If the former, well, I'm thinking we're not going to have a very productive discussion here. But I'm giving it a shot, anyway. (Note that this has been discussed here before from the perspective of BLP concerns, which is why the entries should be cited. This will obviously take some time, which I am not willing to start committing to unless I can be reasonably sure the lists will not disappear completely.) - dcljr (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed the list again.
  1. More than 1/3 of the names presented do not have Wikipedia articles, and are therefore NOT Notable, and possibly BLP violations. If the list is a unit — and was reverted as such, so guess whose fault it now is — then the list doesn't belong, Q.E.D.
  2. Anyone who wants to (lazily) restore it can provide a credible source (or perhaps sources) for the list. As in THE ENTIRE LIST AS GIVEN. Otherwise, entries are certainly running afoul of being original research, and readily deletable, and anyone who restores them Is Just Not Getting It.
  3. Someone please establish that to be "an AV idol" one must have a vagina. At best, the inherent sexism is highly questionable.
  4. If the list has any validity, then (again Q.E.D.) it ought to be a List page, rather than clogging up the article with additional one-handed fanboy trivia.
I hope that's clear enough.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that's clear is that I don't want to interact with you anymore. Bye. - dcljr (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:AV_idol&oldid=1212603691"