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.
Delete Well is he non-notable or is he known for creating the work? You kind of contradict yourself there a little. :-) Although even I have heard of Tokyo Underground (and I am by no means a manga/anime fan), Uraka badly fails the Google test. While that certainly isn't a reason in and of itself to delete, one would think that a person working in this area would have a large internet presence - Stan Lee, for instance, gets over three million hits. I do think this should be recreated as a redirect, though. faithless(speak)07:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that he's had 1/3 of his works adapted into anime. Granted, he only has three works/series so far, but that make it all the more impressive, IMO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of a well-known, notable work and winner of an award (not one of the majors, but a significant one) for a different work looks like passing WP:CREATIVE to me: Keep. If we're going to Google test, I note that the number of Japanese hits is hardly a fail. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, award-winning author of a notable series. (Also, doing a google search for the romanized name of a Japanese author whose work has not been published in English strikes me as a rather lousy method of judging notability.) --erachimatalk19:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that when one doesn't speak Japanese and is admittedly ignorant of the genre in which the person works, a Google search is the best method of judging notability. If you have a suggestion of a better way, please do share it, but keep any snide comments to yourself. Also, the search results for his Japanese name isn't all that impressive either. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable necessarily, but a basic tenet of Wikipedia is verifiability - we need reliable sources establishing notability, and so far such sources seem hard to come by. faithless(speak)22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How fascinating, a deletionist using Google results to prop up his position. I almost always see it go the other way, when hundreds of hits for an item show up they usually go "HURR HURR WP:GOOGLEHITS. Well, it swings both ways, yes? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a deletionist? I've never been accused of that before. Oh well, first time for everything, isn't that what they say? Or is it, "HURR HURR first time for everything?" I never can seem to get it straight. faithless(speak)02:53, 2 October 2008 (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.