Talk:Emi Nitta

Removal of reference to possible AV work

"In 2008 before her VA work she starred in an adult video." has been removed, no source cited, and her agency denies this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.241.234 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Nitta Emi duplicates this page (or the other way around), they should definitely be merged and the oher page should serve as a redirect. Mayast (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gossip

I don't think it's appropriate to write about her gossip considering WP:BLPSOURCES. FYI, There is no mention about that in ja.wikipedia. -Jishinni (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the topic because there was no objection.--Jishinni (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: I see you've already deleted this section but I don't agree that this section was inappropriate under WP:BLPSOURCES (or WP:BLPGOSSIP). The original report was in a legitimate newspaper (regardless of the content of the website), that caused enough impact there was an official response from Nita's representatives and there was a genuine knock-on effect - all with valid citations. Not sure what relevance the Japanese Wikipedia has to the English one in regards to this. –52.212.52.23 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Thank you for your comment and I'm sorry to delete the section without enough consensus. But I think "Asahi Geinou" is NOT legitimate and it is regarded as tabloid journalism. Also, the causal relationship between her gossip and the increase of security is not announced officially, so it is impossible to conclude that it is a genuine knock-on effect. --Jishinni (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Mixed: I agree that "Asahi Geinou" is a tabloid that would fail to meet reliability criteria under WP:SOURCE but it isn't being used as a source of information, it is a real newspaper and was the cause of the original allegations. I think the real contention in this paragraph is the final sentence. You are right there isn't a reliable citation (such as an official announcement) that Nita stopped posting to Twitter, postponed her online radio show and increased security at her events in response to the allegations or harassment Nita received over the allegations and asserting so is likely tantamount to conjecture.

I still think the first two sentences should remain, but I agree that final sentence should be rewritten or removed to avoid falling afoul of WP:OR without an official link between these events. Although we can prove these things happened we can't prove they were direct responses to the rumours. –52.212.52.23 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The postponing of her livestream in April is using the ANN article, and is a direct response to the gossip, but I agree it is not clear whether announcing a bag check in May for an event in August was influenced by the gossip as well, so that part connecting the two is WP:SYNTH unless the radio program had Nitta or her representatives make that connection as with the livestream. Anyway, it looks like her Emitsun radio show is still going on Hibiki Radio [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry, messed up one of those ANN links in my previous comment) Do you have a suggestion for how that could be incorporated into the article? I'm unsure if replacing the final sentence with something along the lines of "Due to online harassment from fans who remain convinced Nitta appeared in the video, Nitta's webstream Emint Night went on hiatus." is worded in a way which breaks one of the aforementioned policies. –52.212.52.23 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd just remove the implied "online harrassment" part, as it is not clear that was the cause for the postponement or whether it was a preventative measure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)