Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryu Ota
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 no consensus. W.marsh 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ryu Ota
Does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. Basic 'claim to fame' is that he wrote an anti-Semitic book discussed here. The book gets about 9 ghits. Ryu Ota/Ota Ryu get around 200 combined ghits. Antonrojo 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Encyclopedically non-notable. A single hit in international Factiva news database (I tried both versions of his name) - one line passing mention in a brief Jerusalem Post article on anti-semitic websites. One line mention and footnote in one book on google books[1] Bwithh 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Missvain 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Guiandg 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, NN,SkierRMH,11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: As a Japanese person, you will find more info in Japanese. 569 unique Ghits for "太田龍" and 44 unique Ghits for the book. However, his book has an unimpressive Amazon rank of 623,840th. Ohconfucius 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: His name is written "太田竜" too (竜 is the simplified form of 龍). --1523 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep more material has suddenly been added; it looks like this person has something to have an article about (even if you don't like what he represents). Translation needed. Hmains 23:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO ALREADY VOTED: More info has been added, which may change your vote. May not, but you guys should look at the article again. That being said, I would have voted delete based on the article as it stood on the 18th. With what it up NOW I say Keep. --Wizardman 18:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:08, 27 November 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.
