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. I'm sick and tired of the keep camp complaining about me not looking into the sources when they are the ones that need to point out why they help assert the subject's notability, because THEY want to keep it. Additionally, I scorn at the very idea of even having to keep a poorly written article in the first place. Go improve this sorry excuse of an article if you want. I'm out after I drop an Expand JP tag. I'm disappointed that Wikipedia's standards have fallen so low nowadays. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reiko Suzuki[edit]

Reiko Suzuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally zero references were used in this article, and the filmography only detailed works the subject's been in, without specifically detailing who. It's worse than a credits dump. Only main role is that of V-May from Magical King Granzort. No news articles to assert the subject's notability found. I do not consider the subject as notable, as I think she fails WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:WHYN and WP:BIO. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article just needs expansion with the sources present at ja: wiki [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even with sources available, is that proof that the subject is notable? Not necessarily. It could very much be possible that they're just mere cast announcements. Have you analyzed the sources? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - She seems to have made a career mainly voicing old women, which tends to lead to more supporting roles rather than major roles. However, in addition to the role Sk8erPrince listed, she is also part of the main cast of the Nono-chan TV series. So I would say she just barely passes WP:ENT with major rolls in at least two works. Calathan (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just two main roles (in two niche works) is enough to garner your own independent article? What is up with that kind of logic? It doesn't work like that. The Nono series is extremely obscure, given that the subject is not even vaguely mentioned on the article. Having a career mainly voicing as that random old woman in a number of anime doesn't make the subject notable. Are there any strong, reliable sources that actually asserts how notable the subject is? Until those so called reliable sources in the JP article have been verified, there is no way at all that I would deem the subject as notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Nono-chan is a niche work, given that the TV series ran for more than a year, and that the manga has also received a film adaptation by Studio Ghibli (which Reiko Suzuki wasn't in). It isn't well known in the United States (and probably many other countries outside Japan), but that is very different than being niche in its home country. I am of the opinion that just two major roles (and a lifetime of supporting roles), is enough for an article per WP:ENT, but just barely, hence the "weak" keep vote. Calathan (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Let's assume that Nono is notable enough on the grounds that it has an adaption done by Studio Ghibli. However, the sheer fact that not even a brief characters list is even made on the main Wikipedia page of Magical King Granzort should reflect how non-notable it is.

By the way, some particular supporting roles could amount to notability, if they're extensively covered in secondary sources. The Bleach captains/lieutenants are good examples of which, as a number of them have their own independent Wikipedia articles:

Renji

Sosuke

Gin

However, none of the subject's roles are nearly as notable as the supporting characters I've listed. They are just that random grandma that doesn't add much to the main story. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per knowledge above. What this needs is attention from a Japanese speaker.--Adam in MO Talk 03:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has verified whether or not the sources help assert the notability of the subject. I suggest that you don't vote unless you have verified them yourself. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained before to you, this is where WP:BEFORE comes in; "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability as in you have to look at what is out there which includes other wikis. If you need help translating then there are places here to do that for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe users could learn to write a sizable article in the first place through peer editing and assessment before publication so that AFDs like these could be avoided. When all you do is insert a single line and list a (badly written) filmography, it's worse than a credits dump. Whoever created this article is just begging to have their article to get deleted. Research should be done by the article creator and those that wish to expand it. I'm not doing any more research than the basic role analyzation for poorly written articles like these. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then prepare to have the articles kept in AfD discussions. I have seen it more than once where WP:BEFORE is cited as the reason for closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, it's not like I haven't already done basic research for articles I don't care about. Like I said, further research should only be conducted by those that wish to improve the article. I have no intention of achieving that, as I scorn those that can't even learn to write a more sizable article, first. People like those do not deserve my sympathy. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the way it works though, you the nominator need to check the sources before placing the article up for deletion. This isn't "further research" as looking at other wikis can be done with a click of a button on the left side of the article under "languages". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KK87 Has it right. It is up to you, the nominator, to do the due diligence in checking out the sources. Sk8er, please don't take this as an insult, I really don't mean it that way, but you really don't know how to evaluate sources yet, you really should back off of this kind of stuff before you are tbanned. You almost had the tban once.--Adam in MO Talk 03:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to evaluate sources? That isn't for you to decide. You got something to say to me that is unrelated to the notability of this subject, take it to my talk page. Don't try to derail the main topic at hand. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to evaluate sources is germane to this discussion and I have discussed that with you in other places already.--Adam in MO Talk 04:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'd rather you not try to keep an article that literally has zero references (in the Eng wiki). The article creator or anyone that is interested should redo the entire article in English from scratch since they have clearly not read WP:YFA. I scorn anyone that thinks it's ok to ignore that guideline. Seriously, if every contributor has at least sent in their drafts for evaluation before publication, we wouldn't be having discussions like these right now. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume that I haven't looked into the JP wiki. I have. And in this case, I don't think it helps with notability at all. The amount of limited notable roles the subject has led me to believe that the subject has not reached our requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this moment. Failure of WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR are all valid reasons for deletion.

You said above yourself "Nobody has verified whether or not the sources help assert the notability of the subject" I take this as you didn't look at the sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't care to look into the sources in detail if I have deemed that even the JP wiki is nothing more than a credits dump. Also, I've demanded you to analyze the sources, since you're the one that says the subject is notable based on the sources in JP wiki. Your statement means nothing unless you have analyzed them yourself. Well then, what's it gonna be? Are you gonna tell me how the subject is notable with the sources available in the JP wiki? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't care for responses such as I demand you, WP:BEFORE clearly states that you have the burden to look at the sources. Nobody is making you do this but it isn't a good argument for deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself. Simply making an almost obsolete statement such as "sources are present" without actually determining whether or not they help assert notability shows your inability to make an effective counterargument. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we are going in circles, what part of WP:BEFORE is being read wrong? It is your job as the nominator to check and see if the sources already present are reliable or not. This isn't only applying to you so please don't feel singled out here, it is for any editor that starts an AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that wants to keep the article, so you have to state how X, Y and Z sources help assert the notability of the subject. I, on the other hand, have no desire to keep it. It also helps to know that I've listed two other reasons why I think the article should be deleted. You are free to talk in circles without paying any mind to the two other failures I've listed. I don't mind. Anyway, WP:BIO failure is a very valid reason to nominate an article for deletion. Obviously, if an article is blatantly not ready for publication, it should either be pushed back to userspace or deleted. The latter is a better option, though. It is better because it will serve to teach unthorough contributors what will happen to their half baked work when it is not ready for the mainspace. That's right: Deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how the AfD process works though, you have to put in some effort in seeing if the article can be saved. Not doing so is against WP:BEFORE, and can be seen as a bad faith nomination. As for your other two reasons, those are moot as you refuse to check the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE only applies to an argument where the main concern is notability, as you have stated. By ignoring my other concerns, your counterargument is moot. Please, speak for yourself. I shouldn't have to put in extra effort in saving someone's half baked clustermess. There is absolutely no logic in that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will break down your rationale... No news articles to assert the subject's notability found. I do not consider the subject as notable, as I think she fails WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:WHYN and WP:BIO.................... WP:NACTOR, and WP:WHYN both are under notability issues while WP:BIO is under Notability (people). I would say that yes notability IS the main issue you have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but all you've done up to this stage is point out the existence of sources without actually stating whether or not they are useful. You are also ignoring the fact that the article is poorly written and that it also severely fails WP:WHYN. Maybe if you actually look into everything (and by that, I mean all the failures I've listed), I'll be more inclined to take you seriously. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Knowledgekid87.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You call that well laid out? I mean, sure, why don't you continue supporting the existence of poorly written articles? I'm sure that's very contributive, indeed. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality is not an afd matter in most cases. There are lots of poorly written article but there is no time limit on quality. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Knowledgekid87. --evrik ^(talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Calathan, passes WP:ENT. Despite the nominators outright dismissal of the work as "extremely obscure" because its not known outside Japan, it's clearly a main role for a notable series. The bulk of their roles might be minor, but that's not the issue as people can have long successful careers without being mega famous. Our only concern is do they have enough roles that aren't minor characters. The nominator gave one example. Calathan gave another. That's all we need. If that wasn't enough, the nominator has clearly sabotaged their own nomination by focusing too much on getting the page deleted and not enough on being neutral and capable. As well as making demands of people that he isn't prepared to make of himself. If you are going to demand people do a better job of creating and improving articles, then you need to be able to show you can do the same. Making those demands in an AFD nomination is not constructive. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree that merely having two main roles is enough to warrant your own independent article. I am also in complete disapproval of poorly written articles having a place on our encyclopedia in the first place. And, FYI, I did improve several articles that I care about (contrary to popular belief, I am not just a deletionist) - view my list of contributions. Additionally, I am not a hypocrite as well, as I do have people peer review my drafts before submitting them for publication. Oh yeah, I don't just submit my article(s) without having received approval from the admins, first. Take this example, for instance. In any case, I'm withdrawing this nom. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2016 (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.