Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetsuo Shimada

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuo Shimada

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a Google search in Japanese for news and came up with nothing that would show notability. If there are decent reviews of his books in Japanese he might be notable as an author, but I could only see book selling sites and UGC. Mccapra (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did a search on .jp websites, there are a few scientists with a similar name, but nothing for a sports personality. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to justify itself biographical vailidity, usefulness to Wikipedia as an encyclopedic-nature overview, or via notability or language-specified citation checks - not even the linked Shimada Corporation notation on the page provides even remotely enough information to justify this page's existence. Furthermore, none of the subject's publications, affiliations or contributions to his field suggest that this page provides meaningful or useful information from which readers can benefit. As such, all the evidence points to the deletion of this page; I can't see how it could be improved in the foreseeable future, nor does it seem worth scraping together reviews of the subject's generally insignificant output of work. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (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.