Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akihiko Saito

Add links
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 Keep. King Jakob C2 20:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Akihiko Saito[edit]

Akihiko Saito (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)

This really doesnt pass notability guidelines, other than the fact that he died in Iraq he isnt notable. See also WP:BLP1E Werieth (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The third point of WP:BLP1E is that "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." Saito's role is central to the event and obviously supported by multiple online news references. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 00:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was his role? Depending on the source you look at there are 66,000+ civilian deaths in the Iraq hostilities. This looks like a WP:MEMORIAL. As the artilcle is currently there is a complete lack notability and is severely biased. Werieth (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is ample WP:RS for this in Japanese and international media, to include BBC, Japan Times, CNN. Passes WP:BASIC. Jun Kayama 01:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick search from a single USA soldier who was recently killed in the conflict. Sgt. 1st Class James Floyd Grissom has multiple news stories about his death (which are independent of each-other) However he isn't notable other than he was killed in the conflict. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event Neither of these articles should exist. Werieth (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats not covered in the article, right now it reads like a memorial page, with zero importance. Werieth (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Did you read any of the references before you made claim this fails WP:N? Did you also see at the bottom where it states this article is a stub and needs expansion? This is not a WP:MEMORIAL. I'll rewrite this myself next week when I get to it.
Also, for the record, SFC Grissom was KIA in Afghanistan; what matters for him is if he meets criteria for WP:MILPEOPLE and he does not. Foreign hostages in a conflict (as well as journalists killed in the line of duty) tend to receive elevated notice in WP:RS and qualify for WP:N much more easily because their capture becomes enmeshed in larger events (i.e. List of journalists killed during the Syrian Civil War). Jun Kayama 02:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Saito's captivity and death brought a lot of heat to Prime Minister's Koizumi's decision to have JGSDF/JASDF forces in Iraq with strong debates between the government and opposition on the legality to have Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group forces there in the first place. It's also this because Japanese troops are never deployed unless the UN or other international organizations require their presence. Ominae (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or immediately improve. This article has been waiting for someone to add notability of the subject for over five years. If larger notability of this individual (or his being taken as a hostage and subsequent death) cannot be added with support from multiple references, it should be deleted. Notability should specifically speak to larger political ramifications of his death, if any. I note that there is not (nor has there ever been) a Japanese Wikipedia article for Akihiko Saito, and I suspect that he is not truly notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or immediately improve per Bueller 007. These kind of people - whose action or accidents prompt the deployment of forces - are notable. Another example would be the Italian journalist who got killed at the checkpoint. Yet we cannot wait forever. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject of the article is either notable, or it is not. It matters not at all whether the article itself reflects that notability. Those commenting who suggest "delete or improve" seem not to appreciate this point. One does not !vote on the article, but rather on the article subject -- and whether it is notable. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: - Working on improving it, though I need to sleep soon. I expanded the article to include reactions in Iraq and Japan. Ominae (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but notability must be established by people who wish to retain the article. It is not enough to merely say "I think he is notable" on the AfD debate. The article was created in 2005 and marked as lacking notability in 2008. Enough time has passed for us to shit or get off the pot. We must either improve the article to demonstrate that he is indeed notable or delete the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When we !vote, we !vote not on what is in the article, but what is in the RSs. It need not be established in the article itself. If you are !voting solely on what is in the article -- and not looking at the RSs (that's why you are provided with the "Find sources" links above, for a start), then you are not looking at the appropriate basis for your !vote. Anyone who says "the article has to be improved first" is simply incorrect. AfD is not for cleanup. And that is not the basis for a !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider reading what I wrote before you comment again. As I said, I do not think he is notable. And since the article lacked any indication of notability, the burden of proof is on those who wish to prove notability. If he is notable, his notability must be established in the article itself with references. This is common sense as well as Wikipedia policy. Therefore, the article must be improved to demonstrate his notability, otherwise we should assume that he is NOT notable and delete the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your are flatly incorrect. It is sufficient, to be kept, that such notability exist -- it is not necessary (though of course it would be nice) for it to be reflected in the article. You say that I am wrong, and it is WP policy that the opposite is the case -- where, in WP policy, does it state what you assert is the case .... that to survive an AfD the indication of notability need be in the article itself? You pointed not to the AfD policy, but to the Verifiability policy, which is a different matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think Bueller is quite correct here. As WP:NRVE clearly states: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Therefore the statement that "notability must be established in the article itself" is not Wikipedia policy. True, the burden is on those asserting notability to show that independent RS really do exist, but there is no requirement that the article itself must reflect those RS at the time of the AfD. Notability must be judged on the existing article and its potential for expansion, not on its current state. It can of course help any article up for AfD if someone puts the time into inserting those RS during the AfD process. Michitaro (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Capture of Akihiko Saito and redirect, the capture and death of Akihiko Saito received significant coverage from reliable sources, therefore the event was notable. The event received mention in multiple reliable sources after the immediate time which the event occured, and thus can be said to meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. That being said the subject did not receive significant coverage outside of the event (his capture which lead to his death) or at any point before his capture; therefore I would argue that the subject falls under WP:BIO1E, and as such a biography of the subject should be incorporated into an article about the event. If such an article becomes too large per WP:LIMIT, a biography article can be recreated at that time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akihiko_Saito&oldid=1142165560"