Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasunobu Narita

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasunobu Narita[edit]

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

I originally prodded this article, but that was denied by the original author. Since they communicated with me, I warned them twice that the article contained no independent RS to prove notability [1] [2]. They have done nothing to prove notability since then. The article is on a researcher who has no academic position, who has only published articles and sections of books. Searches in both English and Japanese come up with no independent significant RS to prove this person passes WP:ACADEMIC. Note the corresponding Japanese page, authored by the same user, has also been nominated for deletion: [3]. Michitaro (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —innotata 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 22:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article original author has created also at the same time an article on .ja, with a just closed AfD: ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/成田康修. For information only, as of course an en. AfD focus on en. criteria, and each project is independent of the matter, I summarize the arguments developed there, as best as I can grasp them with a ja → en automated translation of the AfD.

The core arguments given in the debate are a lack of sources and no element of notability. One participant notes one of the book he coauthored is indeed a reference book, but only because of the main author.

To measure the impact and the research notoriety, one participant refers to http://researchmap.jp/read0142034/.

Another participant notes it's a self-promotional article, and the redactor causes other troubles on ja. (copyvio for example), but that's not relevant in the current en. debate.

Finally, if the original article author has here removed the PROD, on ja. he has commented the AfD as this: 「お手数ですが、削除を宜しくお願い申し上げます。」. He seems to apologize for the trouble and agrees with the article deletion. Dereckson (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any independent sourcing or third-party coverage, it's hard to see how the subject of this article satisfies the basic notability criteria, let alone WP:ACADEMIC. --DAJF (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2014 (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.