Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Furuta

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Furuta[edit]

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

This page is being nominated for AFD due to not meeting general notability guidelines. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am completing this nomination on behalf of the above IP user, using the rationale posted on the article's talk page. I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Presumably, the applicable standards are WP:Notability (academics) or WP:BIO. The BLP has only just been started, but it looks to me from the links that can be accessed above that the article could be revised and sourced as to meet those standards on multiple counts. It is worth noting that this nomination appears to be further spillover of edit warring by the 46.7.236.155 at Gaman (term) that has already spread to WP:RSN. Fladrif (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furuta doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for academics' bios. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article gives WorldCat identities as a ref, buther page there shows 1 book, held in one library DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has received passing mention in several non-primary reliabe sources however in those reliable sources the subject has not received significant coverage therefore the subject is not notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The subject of this AfD has written two books, that being said the subject does not appear notable as defined by WP:AUTHOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2013 (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.