Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masaki Kito
- Masaki Kito (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)
non-notable individual Zambelo (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 7. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 05:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I am somewhat reluctant about this since I suspect that the user who started this article, Mk08111, is likely related to the subject. Also, the article is a mess. But the fact is I have seen Kito on television many times as a commentator and he does specialize in what the article says he specializes in: cult incidents and consumer fraud cases. There are a number of articles centered on him: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. He also appears in other articles as the leading lawyer for some plaintiff, such as in the Agura Bokujo case [6] or in the Unification Church case [7] or the Kinmirai Tsushin case [8]. He's also often sought out by news organizations for expert opinion on Aum Supreme Truth [9], mind control [10], or other cases [11]. The article already cites some English articles that note his role as a lawyer. I'm sure I could find more if I go through the newspaper databases. The article needs to be cleaned up, especially with regard to WP:COI, but he passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. As per the sources above provided by Michitaro (some of which I have added to the article), I think basic notability is adequately demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)