Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naoto Ōshima

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. Tone 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ōshima[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP article tagged as such since August 2009. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but it was reverted within the hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me", which fails to address the problems of an unsourced WP:BLP article. Article is ineligible for WP:BLPPROD because it was created before March 18, 2010. Icalanise (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep or Merge to Sonic the Hedgehog (character) I dug deep into Google through tons of blogs and private websites to find a mention on The Guardian. He gets a lot of attention by the blogosphere which - although unusable as ref/source - does indicate a certain notability. Sonic the Hedgehog is a well known video game character and although I am normally very critical of overly fast inclusion of articles in this field I'm going to say "weak keep". Travelbird (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. --Teancum (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Teancum seems to have nailed it. This article needs to have its references improved, but the topic is notable. -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTH in general, and #2 in particular. As a side point, infinite nominations for AfD are bad enough, but now the barely transparent PROD process can be duplicated with WP:BLPPROD? Surely they should be mutually exclusive. Anarchangel (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (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.