Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 November 13
2019 November 15 >

14 November 2019

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kasumi Suzuki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have found sources since then where Kasumi Suzuki has had lead roles in various media projects in this edit, including Karas (1), Kaidan Shin Mimibukuro: Yūrei Mansion (1) (2), and Drama 8 Geinōsha (1). She has also appeared in recurring roles such as Threads of Destiny (1) and Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger (1). If anything, it would be wrong to redirect her article to Ojamajo Doremi simply because most Japanese sources list the latter two as some of her bigger roles. This is also off-topic, but the original nominator for the article was given a topic ban for handling deletion processes and a proposed topic ban for entertainment/voice actor-related articles. lullabying (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose overturning. I wasn't going to comment until I saw the above comment about chiding me. The article was not closed due to a dearth of references, but simply that the actress did not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Did that editor take any effort, as I did, to look at the new sources? Hopefully not, since if they did and still felt obligated to opine as they did, they really need to bone up on WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NACTOR. Ref #1 is a promo. Ref #2, is not an independent source. Ref #3 is a listing, which shows she had minor roles on various tv series. Ref #4 is a simple listing which doesn't even mention the actress. Ref #5, shows that she had a significant role in a one-off tv production, which is like having a featured role on a single episode of episodic television, which never counts as per WP:NACTOR. #6 is a very brief mention, literally, she is simply listed. #7 is a character bio on a non-independent source. #8 is probably the briefest of mentions, simply mentioning her first name. #9 is a promo for the DVD of a show. #10 and #11 mention her as well, but the article claims this is a "lead role", however the imdb.com page doesn't even list her as a cast member; in addition, the similarity between these two refs would appear to indicate that they are based off a press release. And finally ref #12 is an ad for the blu-ray. All of these sources were available prior to the AfD. None indicate she has the prerequisite of more than one major role to pass WP:NACTOR, and the totality of the current sourcing doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. My comment, "Restore as per AfD, nothing new since then" is simply that, since the prior AfD was closed as redirect, and there have been no significant roles since the AfD was closed, and since the additional sources clearly don't meet WP:GNG, the comment was apt.Onel5969 TT me 01:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Ref 4 does list her in credits, and ref 12 is not an ad -- it's an article, and it lists that she is cast it in at the end. IMDB is also not a good source to reference. Ref 5 is a program outline. Ref 6 -- I don't understand why a brief mention is bad? lullabying (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lullabying: Oh nothing is bad, just that it doesn't count towards GNG, but it can still count towards other notability criteria. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". ミラP 17:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the issues with the one who sent the page to AFD in 2016, someone take a look at all of his AFDs closed as delete in before the first topic ban. ミラP 17:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and allow any editor to list at AfD. When nominated at AfD, the article had no sources. After the changes by Lullabying, the article had 12 sources. It is clear that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion does not apply as this is not a "sufficiently identical cop[y]". Onel5969 has raised concerns about the quality of the sources. These concerns can be discussed at a new AfD.

    Cunard (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_November_14&oldid=1039520088"