Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show=Tarou Harada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom. Original prod stated "As his only work, Na Na Na Na for which he is even remotaly known fails WP:BK, i believe he fails WP:BIO." Prod removed by IP with note of "Clearly states in 1st line that that isn't his only work." However, Harada clearly fails fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. Of his two works, one is only marginally notable in that it has an anime adaptation, though no actual significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is known for other things as well. Na Na Na Na and D4 Princess are the only things he has listed in his article, both of them appearing quite notable, but his website list dozens of other things he has done as well. Anyone look into that yet? Dream Focus 21:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you prove he is notable by showing coverage in reliable, third-party sources, not what he himself says about himself? And considering you discounted his saying his name is Show=Tarou Harada (published name), versus Shotaro Harada (what ANN listed),[1] it would seem you are being selective in deciding what he can be considered reliable about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of his series was populate enough to be made into an anime. He is a notable enough manga writer. Dream Focus 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, prove it. One manga getting an anime series does not make the manga's author notable per Wikipedia guidelines, which are still what we follow here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That guideline is just a suggestion, you suppose to think for yourself. Common sense says if the writer produced a manga that sold well enough to make an anime, which survived for multiple seasons, they must be notable, since their work was clearly notable. Policies must be accepted, not the suggested guidelines. WP:IAR has an interesting statement in it from Jimmy Wales himself, about how Ignore All Rules has always been part of Wikipedia, and a key factor to remain. Wikipedia is about consensus and common sense, not rules. Think for yourself, and stop quoting guidelines. Dream Focus 10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore all rules does not mean that you can ignore policies or guidelines simply because you don't like or agree with them. Perhaps you should go back and reread WP:IAR, especially this line: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every action is justified, but you can't make your decisions entirely based on the ever changing guidelines. It says Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Dream Focus 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore all rules does not mean that you can ignore policies or guidelines simply because you don't like or agree with them. Perhaps you should go back and reread WP:IAR, especially this line: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That guideline is just a suggestion, you suppose to think for yourself. Common sense says if the writer produced a manga that sold well enough to make an anime, which survived for multiple seasons, they must be notable, since their work was clearly notable. Policies must be accepted, not the suggested guidelines. WP:IAR has an interesting statement in it from Jimmy Wales himself, about how Ignore All Rules has always been part of Wikipedia, and a key factor to remain. Wikipedia is about consensus and common sense, not rules. Think for yourself, and stop quoting guidelines. Dream Focus 10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, prove it. One manga getting an anime series does not make the manga's author notable per Wikipedia guidelines, which are still what we follow here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of his series was populate enough to be made into an anime. He is a notable enough manga writer. Dream Focus 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you prove he is notable by showing coverage in reliable, third-party sources, not what he himself says about himself? And considering you discounted his saying his name is Show=Tarou Harada (published name), versus Shotaro Harada (what ANN listed),[1] it would seem you are being selective in deciding what he can be considered reliable about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Collectonian and WP:DIRECTORY under Genealogical entries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my original prod. While D4 Princess might be notable, the other is not and just having 1 series be made into an anime doesn't make it likely you'll have more info on the author unless they are extremely popular which isn't the case here.陣内Jinnai 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A1 - article with no context at all. Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article does identify its subject, so it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#A1. —Farix (t | c) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No, it dosen't. There's dispute over the name of the person identified by the article. Hipocrite (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is questioning who this person is, just the best way to write his name. Everyone involved knows that they are talking about the creator of the manga Na Na Na Na and D4 Princess. Calathan (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, not notable enough.--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (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.