Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atsushi Okubo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per demonstrated notability and further improvements to the article since the start of this discussion. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atsushi Okubo

Atsushi Okubo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No way to verify any claims, no sources, and vaguely notable. Tiptoety talk 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep seems notable based on extensive Japanese language article, that version is very anal about notability.Icamepica (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails WP:N and WP:V as there are absolutely no references or verifiable and reliable sources to assert notability. nat.utoronto 12:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: it takes only three clicks (two, now) to reach the sources of the Soul Eater (manga) article which establish his authorship of a notable work. Which is trivially easy research, of the sort that should be done before nominating an article. The statements of assistantship take a little more digging, admittedly, but can be found. There -- verification. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not sure that quite verifies the claims in this article, for one the article states he is the author of the manga while the source says he was a staff member. Also I am not sure that that source alone provides reliable secondary sources. Tiptoety talk 15:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Contrary to the nom, it's actually quite easy to verify that he is the author of notable works. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe my investigating before i nominated did not come up with all of the sources that are out there. If you would not mind providing those sources, it would be greatly appreciated. Tiptoety talk 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There are already plenty of links in this discussion that verify he is the author of the works mentioned in the article. With respect, it doesn't appear that you have done any "investigating". PC78 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Creator of Soul Eater (manga) Over 81,000 hits for romanization of Name (Atsushi Okubo)[1] 55,000 hits for his Japanese Name 大久保篤,[2].A couple of Japanese Language News articles that at a minimum mention his name. An editor with Japanese language skills will have to review these closer to see if there is any useful info.[3][4]. Also involved in work on the Get Backers manga. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not sure that most of the hits relate to him writing any type of manga, most come up with someone involved in computer animation and graphics [5]. Tiptoety talk 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Computer animation runs closely with Animation and Manga drawing, articles may refer to the same person. I can't be sure since I cannot read Japanese. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
They don't. Doceirias (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Author of a very successful manga about to be turned into an anime. Unquestionably notable. Doceirias (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Question - Of Soul Eater presumably? Have links to support that there will be anime adaptation? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[6] - The Official Anime website?Doceirias (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, hey, would you look at that. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing the notability of the person, not the manga. Tiptoety talk 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Authorship of a notable manga means the author himself is notable; this is the standard means of determining notability across the project. Doceirias (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
@Tiptoety. Well, Yeah. That's pretty well understood. We're discussing his works for which he is notable. It would seem if an persons creation was syndicated, and then adapted for television airing and it featured some big names like T.M.Revolution for opening theme, that it's likely he is notable. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure the work is notable, but can we verify that he created it? Claims that he is the author of a notable work are nothing without proper sources. Tiptoety talk 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • His name is on the cover. [7] If you insist on having an independent source to support such an obvious assertion, though, this Mainichi article refers to the original manga as "Atsushi Okubo's popular manga". Bikasuishin (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep -- This is the author of a notable work in the manga genre. Good references in the article, but they could be improved by incorporating the references brought forth here and in the article on Soul Eater. The article asserted the subject's notability, the references and wikilinks bore it out. Why was this article sent to AfD? And why was a redirect to this article tagged under WP:CSD#R1 before this article was even deleted? This isn't adding up. --SSBohio 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I understand that the original state of the article differed from the current one, the sources establish the subject as the author of a notable manga being released as an anime. WP:BIO states that a creative professional is notable if they've created a notatble work that has been the subject of independent reviews. At this point, I believe he clearly qualifies. Xymmax (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just realized I never got around to actually saying keep: verified creator of a notable work is notable, per WP:BIO. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as revised. While I can appreciate the original concerns of the nominator, they appear to have been resolved. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (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.