Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Aoki

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 wasKeep JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Aoki[edit]

This articles asserts notability and has references, however whether that notability is sufficient is questionable. He is notable seemingly for one reason: an AP interview on one specific one time topic. I see no other notability outside of a response to someone else' comment. Being a writer/reporter alone is not notable. JodyB_talk 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 15:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A simple google search ("Guy Aoki" -wiki -silverman) gives over 1,000 hits from a ten-year period 1993-2003. For almost a decade he seems to have been *the* person to go to for a quote on the portrayal of Asians on film or television. That seems to indicate rather more notability than a one-off - but I'm not entirely sure myself it makes him quite notable enough. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has clearly had a lot more coverage than just the one incident the article currently focuses on.--Michig (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not the subject of any major profiles that I can see but there is a record of continuous coverage (successful activism) well back into the 1990s, not just the Silverman incident, including in Google Scholar and Google Books. If it weren't for that I would suggest a move to Media Action Network for Asian Americans. That incident, though, is given WP:NPOV#Undue weight in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to me to meet WIkipedia standards for notablity. Just because someone appears in Google doesn't make them notable. Aoki's claim to fame is that infamous "fracas" with Silverman. Sure, he helped found MANAA, but it's the organization and its work that's important, not him; -- 208.127.79.104 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless references to him in other context are added. And then present contnet would need drastic cutting.DGG (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough awareness of this person as a spokesperson against Asian prejudice, there's notability asserted and proved and there's sources. Article needs work, but it meets acceptable standards of notability. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information on the Sarah Silverman "Chink" controversy is valuable, because it gives an interesting insight into how differenty racism is perceived on American television. I'd rather ask if it should be listed in an Guy Aoki article or in a separate one about the "chink" incident. Tierlieb (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL there appears to be significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (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.