Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomoko Nishimura

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoko Nishimura

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

Cannot find any coverage in English or Japanese. Subject appears to fail WP:N and doesn't seem to meet any of the additional WP:ARTIST criteria.

Japanese search resulted in primary sources, databases and forum posts (Note: it appears the artist spells her name in Kana, haven't found a kanji version of the name). English search didn't turn up anything relevant. The ANN source briefly mentions the subject, but isn't primarily about the subject or her work. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if she technically meets #3 under WP:Author, but I would think creating a work that has been adapted into a TV series (and a relatively long one, at 70+ episodes and still airing) would be of equivalent notability to what it listed there. Certainly, creating a work that was adapted into a TV series seems more notable to me than creating a work that got a couple reviews in publications. Calathan (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company that did the animated adaptation is also the publisher of the manga, so I'm not sure it would meet the "independent" part of that optional criteria. And even if we get a consensus that does meet the criterion, there really isn't much to write about here without sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person is clearly notable. Forget about trying to interpret the vagueness of the suggested guidelines, and think for yourself. A writer's notability is determined by their work. The work is notable, so are they. This does not violate the rule about notability is not inherited, since that only contains to people who are related to someone famous, but have never done anything themselves. Dream Focus 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, on Wikipedia a writer's notability is determined by reliable third-party coverage. It has nothing to do with what someone subjectively feels is notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability or sufficient sourcing to justify a self-standing biographical article. No indication here that the work this person is supposed to have penned is even notable either. --DAJF (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator's search in 2 languages clearly shows failure to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The manga may or may not be notable. Also, there is hardly any information on the page, and no notability claim. Shashwat986 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (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.