Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro-Wave Human Tackle

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. v/r - T P 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-Wave Human Tackle[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a fictional character who has existed for 36 years. Obviously, Neelix has not made any such searches by using the character's original Japanese name 電波人間タックル. From this we can see that she has been featured in a 2009 toy line (as mentioned in Hyper Hobby magazine's January 2009 issue, as reproduced here) and again in a 2010 release (as seen here), as well being featured in the 2009 film Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider W & Decade: Movie War 2010 (as mentioned in Figure Oh issues 141 and 142, reproduced here and here). This obviously does not cover the original character's appearances as in 1975's Kamen Rider Stronger, but searches in English (915,000 results) and Japanese (755,000 results) show that by far the character is notable to some extent, even if I cannot give you citations for the original incarnation of the character from 1975.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Contrary to Ryulong's assertions, I have searched for reliable, secondary sources for this fictional character and have not found a sufficient amount of significant coverage to establish the character's notability. All of the sources provided by Ryulong above come from a blog that does not appear to be reliable, and the searches provided do not appear to reveal reliable sources either. A fictional character's notability is established by significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, not by age or raw Google hits. Neelix (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not citing the blog as a reliable source. I am using it to show that the character appeared in reliable sources that the blog is reproducing, which is from magazines such as Figure Oh (フィギュア王) and Hyper Hobby (ハイパーホビー) as I mentioned in my keep rationale. If possible, I can get full page scans from the magazine to show that the character was featured in them. For example, here's Figure Oh issue 141. Now I see that she's not in that one, so I'll look at one of the other magazines the blog covers. Here she is in a book published by Televi-Kun in January 2010. There's coverage of her in Figure Oh 142. There's an interview with the actress of the 2010 version in this magazine on the Newtype imprint. If there's that much coverage in the Japanese press, even if it is in the publications geared towards the nerdier or younger audiences, then that must mean that the character is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Well Ryulong certainly has proved that wrong. There is no point for deleting this article. Honestly its completely riduculous to start deleting an article thats been there for awhile as well as having notable and reliable sources. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Ryulong. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 August 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.