Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satchiko Riko

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 Delete. Michig (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satchiko Riko

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

Non-notable cosplayer; no third party citations to assert notability. Awards appear to be local/trivial. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I'd say a pretty clear cut G7, nothing to show notability and basically a vanity piece which doesn't have a place here. tutterMouse (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I assume that tutterMouse means A7 above (G7 is for when the author requests deletion). An admin has already declined an A7 nomination for this article, so I think it's unlikely to be speedy deleted under that criterion now. Quasi human | Talk 19:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean A7, G7 is something very different I know. I don't really think that the "awards" confer anything so I'd argue the admin's refusal was a terrible choice. Outside of that, there's literally nothing and I think you have to be an exceptionally well known cosplayer to pass GNG going by the other BLPs for cosplayers. tutterMouse (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the admin who declined the speedy, I should point out that the rules on speedy deletion are very clear - articles that make credible assertion of notability (note that references are not required) are not to be speedy deleted under A7. As to whether or not the awards themselves are credible enough is subject to debate. So I see it when there is a potential for debate to pass it on to AFD where the debate may take place. I would be happy to discuss your thoughts on my approach on my talk page rather than discuss my actions in this AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Stepthen. tutterMouse (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is trivial. Subject is not notable. Jun Kayama 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable source. The awards are no significant. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (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.