Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirooka Hajime

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hirooka Hajime

It was deleted because IMO it didn't demonstrate notability. Is there any independent source on this man? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Recreating the article is not going to help you. I've marked it as speedy since it was recreation of previously deleted material. Discuss it with CanadianCaesar before reposting it again. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I did send him a message, since he was so quick on the draw to delete -- literally right in the middle of my editing / filling out the article. I got one sentence in for less than a few minutes before it was deleted. So develop an AfD if you're going to argue the tenuous "not notable" assertion (which, as an Inclusionist, I personally find quite silly). However, if you're looking for independent verification:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22johnnie+hillwalker%22&btnG=Google+Search
• IIRC, he's also listed in the Lonely Planet travel guide series, issue for Japan / Kyoto.

Suryadas 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• The above was pasted from Suryadas' talk page. I actually have no opinion on this article. Danny Lilithborne 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No opinion other than that it should be deleted? ...since you created the AfD. And if not for not-notable, then what? ("When Deletionists and Inclusionists lock horns, in this episode of Wikipedia!" :P ) Suryadas 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This AfD is really procedural; I created it via an admin recommendation, since a prod would be generally pointless. Normally I don't AfD something on nn grounds unless it's monumentally so, but an admin thought this was speedy deletable. *shrug* Danny Lilithborne 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, understood.  :) Suryadas 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please stop calling editors names and start citing sources. A Google Web search is not a source. Uncle G 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "Deletionist" and "Inclusionist" are more like industry terms; Danny even declares himself such with a userbox on his userpage. They're not pejoratives, unless you want to tangent into the factionalism/anti-factionalism debate. However, as he has said himself, this is more about process not nn for him; I respect that. As for the Google link... if you actually look at it, there are numerous travel guides online which independently reference Johnnie Walker for tours of Kyoto. It seemed to me more sensible to refer to the list-o-links than to mirror them here. Also, I did mean to imply, for CanadianCaesar who began the nn claim, that a quick Google search would have done more to clarify the notability issue than an immediate deletion. Suryadas 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • IgoUgo review of Johnnie Walker
      • Washingtonian
      • nicole.com review
      • Japan Guide Association
      • Andrew C. confirms he's cited in Lonely Planet (Lonely Planet)
        • Tangenting into factionalism is exactly what you were, and still are, doing. Please stop. Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • If the point of contention is not-notability, it seems relavent to me to point out that the significance of "notability" has an on-going debate within the Wikipedia community. "Notability" does not stand on its own, according to consensus, as a reason for deletion. Wiki is not paper. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • You weren't doing that at all. You were name-calling. Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Pointing to the Google list was not sensible. Google results vary from hour to hour and from minute to minute. Pointing to a Google search is not citing a source. Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I find it interesting that WP:BIO specifically mentions the Google Test. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes. Now please read where and how it mentions that test, and also read the article on that test that you just linked to, which discusses its fundamental flaws. Also note that you weren't even employing the Google Test. You just linked to a Google search and said, effectively, "There are the sources.". Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:BIO says "Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?" This is what I was referring to. The link I provided just that. Suryadas 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I wrote where and how. Please read the whole of WP:BIO. At the very least, read from the beginning of the section that you are quoting. Uncle G 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Pointing to the actual source is citing a source. The above citations are a lot more like it. Addressing them: The first is a self-submission web site. The second supplies a couple of sentences of information about this person xyrself, but is actually mostly about Kyoto. The third is the same, and is someone's personal web-site. The fifth merely confirms that somewhere else is a source. The only substantial source is the fourth, which is good material for demonstrating that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. It claims to be a copy of an article in The Japan Times, but that isn't necessarily true. Where's the original? Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • To be clear, being included in Lonely Planet as a significant figure in Kyoto is not sufficient in your view? Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Please address what I actually wrote, rather than straw men. Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability IMO either, perhaps if a major media outlet wrote or him I'd change views. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Again, not-notable is not enough. More criteria, as suggested by WP:BIO seem to be required by consensus to justify a deletion. Put from another perspective, see the Pokémon test. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That test is just as flawed as the Google Test. Please stop using silly tests that we have whole articles explaining the flaws of and please start citing and discussing sources that demonstrate that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Sources are your best and only arguments. Use them! Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a tour guide?! Come on, people! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is "C'mon..." an argument? Appeals to popularity and so-called "common-sense" are not valid. Suryadas 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some sources have been added to the article, and I think that the article now meets WP:BIO. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete below because I can't see how it meets WP:BIO at all. Could you perhaps expand on your opinion or counter my argument, so that other people will be better able to decide what they think? — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This discussion illustrates why it is usually best to compose an article off-line rather than using Wikipedia as a word processor. It also illustrates why premature speedy deletions are problematic. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you explain what you mean by "using Wikipedia as a word processor"? My understanding is that the whole point of Wiki (i.e. fast) is precisely to make lots of little edits, rather than a few big ones. Or is that not what you meant? Suryadas 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That it's best to make sure a new article is demonstrably keepable before you place it in the main article namespace, instead of creating a new, empty article, and expecting to be able to write it a sentence at a time, then getting all upset when someone speedys it before you've written the second sentence. This is not missing the point of a wiki: the point of a wiki is that an existing article can be corrected and expanded quickly, and requiring new articles to be easily distinguished from vanity or spam does not negate that point. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • False-positives of any deletion, particularly speedy, seems counter to WP:AGF. Zeal to delete vandalism/vanity should not come at the expense of legitimate contributions. IMHO, a dirty but information-rich encyclopedia is better than a clean but sparse one. Suryadas 15:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. The only criterion that could possibly be applied IMO is the last one, "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", and while there are several press mentions referenced in the article, in none of them is this man the primary subject or covered non-trivially -- in all cases, he is mentioned only in passing and as just one of many aspects of a visit to Kyoto. As such, I argue that he does not meet that criterion, and therefore does not meet the inclusion guideline. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I agree with Haeleth. I don't see anything that establishes the subject meets WP:BIO. Only one source even comes close to being non-trivial mention of Hirooka Hajime, and one source is not enough for me, or for WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Mukadderat 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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.