Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Gilbert

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Gilbert[edit]

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

He clearly fails the notability guidelines for an actor, his role being so minor. When we turn to GNG there is one source that might be enough to add towards it, although others might see it as a local interest story that does not add towards GNG. Either way GNG requires multiple sources, and only the Deseret News source is 3rd party reliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I lack the capacity to review Japanese-language sources (where the greatest bulk of coverage would likely be found), but even without undertaking that task there are sufficient examples of significant coverage in the US to satisfy WP:GNG. Examples include: (1) "Orem Native Kent Gilbert Is Top Celebrity In Japan", Orem-Geneva Times, April 4, 1984; (2a) "Two Kents from Utah reach TV-star status in Japan", The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 9, 1988; (2b) "Japan's American TV stars", United Press International, July 9, 1988; (2c) "Two Blond Yanks Find Fame in Japan", The San Francisco Chronicle, July 9, 1988; (3) Los Angeles Times article from 1992 referring to Gilbert as "Japan's most famous gaijin tarento, or foreign talent . . . who endlessly pops up on television talk shows and quiz games, makes speeches and pitches products"; (4) "2 Utahns tire of fame in Japan", Deseret News, March 28, 2003; and (5) "Kent Gilbert to Emcee Spectacular '86", Orem-Geneva Times, September 24, 1986. [Note: 2a, 2b, and 2c are the same UPI feature story picked up in multiple newspapers.] Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, as Cbl62 shows, Gilbert was one of the more famous of the "gaijin talent" to hit Japanese TV in the 1980s. Recently, he has become quite notorious as a foreigner who has served as a mouthpiece for the nationalist right wing in Japan. He has published a book criticizing Chinese and Korean culture that has sold nearly half a million copies: [1], [2]. He thus for better or for worse continues to appear regularly in the media for his statements and for disagreements with his positions: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. Michitaro (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article at a minimum needs to be revised so that his statements on political issues are sourced to 3rd-party sources and not sourced to his own website. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article needs work, but several third party sources have already been added, and there is no violation of WP:BLP. Accordingly, article quality and sourcing are editing issues rather than a cause for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs work, but articles should not be nominated for deletion because they need work. Deletion is not a question of the current state of the article but of whether reliable sources can be found. See WP:NEXIST. Michitaro (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming GF on the sources, this seems to meet the GNG DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2018 (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.