Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yujiro

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, CSD A3 non-admin close. Oyster guitarist 06:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yujiro[edit]

Contested prod. Notabilty concerns here. Article about a Japanese actor and presenter, but the references provided don't actually mention him. Note: there are links to the Japanese Amazon site that might be relevant, so if someone who has Japanese could take a look at them. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article seems to be an obvious advertisement, and I can see nothing which indicates real notability (per WP:BIO). Additionally, most or all of the text is an obvious transmutation of the text found on the official site, and the image used in the article has now been tagged for speedy deletion as a blatant copyright violation of an image found on that same page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also marked the page as a likely copyvio due to the uncanny similarities between what was there (before I marked it) and the official site of Yujiro. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page is currently empty. --Kannie | talk 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for WP:SPEEDY per CSD G7. Redfarmer (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was deleted as WP:CSD#A3, no meaningful content, by User:J-stan, after User:Nihonjoe blanked it, claiming copyvio (WP:CSD#G12), and User:Redfarmer marked it as a WP:CSD#G7 speedy (author requests deletion per comment above this one). Normally when I come across a speedied AfD I'll just close it as a de facto delete, but I'm not convinced that any of these reasons is valid. G7 is only valid when the author is the only one to work on an article, which could only be true here if we assume a lot of sockpuppetry. It looks like it has the same information as the claimed copyvio page, http://www.yujirotube.com/, but that's not the same as having the same text. And there was only no meaningful content because it was so recently blanked. Perhaps the right thing to do is to close this and take it to deletion review? I'll leave that for others to decide. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text was the same, just with some words juggled and replaced. That's plagiarism, and a copyright violation. I marked it, because after reading the article, I visited the official site and noticed the English parts there were almost the same as the content in the now-deleted article. Apparently J-stan agreed with me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image used in the article is still being considered for deletion. Just a note for completeness' sake. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that G7 and A3 are not really applicable here. Another reason should have been used. And I should note that I claimed likely copyvio, and I never nominated it for G12 deletion. You can see that in my comments up above. I followed procedure exactly for a possible copyvio. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it was all in good faith, and you're right that you didn't ask for speedy — I added the mention of G12 myself, mostly because it's the most plausible reason to justify the speedy post facto. And it's possible that it would have been deleted anyway; we didn't have any keeps yet. It's just not a very convincing sequence of steps, when viewed as a whole, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2008 (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.