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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Hikino

[edit]

Fails WP:PROF. Claim to notability doesn't really extend beyond being quoted in a single article. fuzzy510 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:N, and WP:BIO. This is an A7 candidate for no assertion of notability Rackabello 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, but boy, I sure wish we could keep it around to show all of those editors who think a person is notable just for being a professor. Qworty 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7, being a profeser does not make you notable. Oysterguitarist 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His books have been reviewed in The New Republic and Business History Review, and one has 1451 citations on Google scholar. That's significant enough coverage that I'd like to see a full AfD, not speedy, so that there is time for clearer evidence of notability (if it exists) to be dug up. —David Eppstein 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy, since he asserts notability. I've removed the tag. Please learn, once and for all, that speedy a7 cannot be used for an article on the person where notability or importance is suggested. WP:CSD. if it is asserted that someone wrote a significant book or article, it asserts notability. speedies are for incontestably non notable, and there are plenty of them--I've been deleting them all day. Those who don't like this --or any other-- policy are welcome to try to change it, but in the meantime everyone is expected to follow it. DGG (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've begun referencing the article and adding some new information (not much yet, but some). I think there's enough information out there to expand the article further, and therefore don't think it should be deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, DGG's and Nihonjoe's edits convince me. @pple 10:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the edits, a publication history that certainly passes WP:V. RGTraynor 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, DGG and Nihonjoe have edited the article enough to help this article pass WP:V, and by association, WP:PROF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he's an important contributor to some of the central economic policy debates of our day. --Christofurio 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lacks content and could do with a copyedit, but these are not AfD criteria. The article establishes notability and meets WP:ATT EyeSerene^TALK 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established via his many published works by various publishing houses. (Mind meal 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Which universe is he in? What's his avatar? What superpowers does he have? Does he run on PS2 or on Wii? What's that -- you say he's real? Um, keep. -- Hoary 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and others, not sure how anyone could have come to the conclusion this was even remotely close to speedy deletion material. RFerreira 01:36, 30 July 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.