Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asumiko Nakamura

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. Consensus is that the article meets NAUTHOR & GNG, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asumiko Nakamura[edit]

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

No notable works for EN Wikipedia. Is there enough to keep the author around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and suggesting withdrawn per WP:HEY, after the expansion it is clear that the subject passes GNG and NAUTHOR. Worth reminding the nominator her works being currently redlinked in en.wikipedia does not mean they are non-notable, and authors/works which are notable in Japan are perfectly suitable for having articles in en.wiki. Cavarrone 07:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the notability tag was placed in 2012, so she was not notable prior to that. That her Doukyusei manga got a film adaptation in 2016 does help her notability as well as her other works charting on Oricon in 2015, probably because of the anime film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a crappy argument! A notability tag placed in 2012 does not automatically mean she was not notable prior to that, except you are stating that every notability tag means the relevant article is not notable. Also, wathever she was notable or not in 2012, does not mean you are supposed to ignore coverage about her works in 2016! And obviously a manga of her adapted into a film and her other works receiving reviews do not just help but demonstrate notability, both for WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. And as you yourself apparently noted, she had already charted on Oricon back in 2013. Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article at 2012 [1] and then right before the AFD. [2] There's nothing that showed she was that notable at that time. There is now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy keep Lack of sources in English does not mean she is not notable when sources in Japanese are available. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide those sources. Make sure they are secondary ones that are independent of the publisher or her blog. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing Asahi Shimbun, Oricon or ダ・ヴィンチニュース are unreliable or have a conflict of interest with the subject you should provide evidences . Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the state of the article at the time of the AFD. It was supported only by primaries such as JManga (publisher), and DMP (publisher). Nothing in the lead paragraph indicated that these works getting licensed by North America / Europe was a big deal to establish that she is notable beyond being some small author in Japan. This was all prior to the recent efforts by KurodaSho. Of course Oricon, Asahi, and D-Navi are reliable secondary sources. That's what the article needs. That, and the ANN references showing they are charting on Oricon and the news about the movie help justify keeping it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability has been established so this one is a keeper. I want to say I am a bit disgusted by the comments above, can we please keep this WP:CIVIL by WP:AGF? I see no evidence that Angus put this up for AfD out of malice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Knowledgekid87. Notability has been established. References and citations in Japanese are perfectly acceptable to establish notability here. For instance: ダ・ヴィンチニュース Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:13, 30 May 2016 (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.