Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukiko Tamaki

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 somewhat borderline notability, but still notable, therefore, keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yukiko Tamaki

Yukiko Tamaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:V. No explicit assertion of importance (implicit, perhaps, to several anime voice roles, but we’re given no indication of why those roles are important; roles appear minor and/or unremarkable). Discussion of blood type and hobby may be quite telling; are those her only noteworthy attributes? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete She hasn't done anything of note yet to be included in WP, as per above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. She voices Kazu Shioda in Digimon Tamers, not minor role. Where's the non-notability? And the Japanese wikipedia, this article is more complete. Sometimes, people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, expand it. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The jawiki article, while longer, is no better than this one. It cites her homepage as the sole source. An article, especially an article about a living person, should be written based on reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject in depth. cab (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The major part of our article is the cast list, which can be verified by checking the credits of the shows mentions. Do we really need third party confirmation of her blood type and hobbies? Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd go the other direction, and question why we need blood type and hobbies in this article. Blood type might be more appropriate on ja:, but on en: it doesn't have the same cultural significance. I would prefer to see things added to the article that are much more important than minor details like hobbies. -- RoninBK T C 05:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Voice actor for primary characters in internationally famous shows. Satisfies WP:BIO's "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" clause. --Oakshade (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - per Oakshade Kitty53 (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I fixed up the article by adding an info box. I also added another sentence.Kitty53 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Vote once, not four times, please. If you have further things you'd like to say after making your first post, indent it underneath your original comment using multiple asterisks, or prefix *'''Comment''' to the beginning of a new line. Finally, having an infobox or not, or in general how "nice" an article looks, has nothing to do with the core standards by which we judge articles for inclusion: notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and use of reliable, intellectually independent sources. cab (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Borderline notable, with only a couple notable roles to her credit, but I'm inclined to give the subject the benefit of the doubt, given her apparent continuing career. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks notable to me.Kitty53 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note for Administrator - I am changing my vote to Strong Keep.Kitty53 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that some have placed multiple !votes. The current summary is as follows:

I renew my concern that not one reliable third-party source, as required by WP:V and WP:RS has been provided. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: For the purposes of a list of credits, Anime News Network Encyclopedia is considered generally reliable by the Anime and Manga WikiProject, wbhich is linked there in the External Links. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree. Anime News Network is reliable.Kitty53 (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Per WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The ANN coverage is not significant (it's decidedly minimal) and ANN is but one source; we need at least two. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you really need two sources? If a clone of ANN appears? Do you accept it? Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Common sense should always be the measure; a clone, an extreme example, would not be sufficient (and likely a copyvio). Also, I'd argue ANN does even count as one RS in this case, as its coverage of Yukiko Tamaki is substantially less than the significant threshold. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Woah woah, confusion here. Her notability would come not from being multiply covered, but the significance of the roles, and for that all that's needed is a reliable source for verification. Which in turn can be implicitly verified from the production credits of the various series. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
ЭLСОВВОLД, I must remind you that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and therefore counting people who have !voted multiple times is irrelevant. Also, there are are other comments other than the ones you summarized that the closing admin can use to determine consensus. Just because someone hasn't prefaced their comment with a bold word doesn't discount their contribution to the discussion -- RoninBK T C 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your reminder is not necessary and is, frankly, condescending; notice the "!votes". Closers are not always perceptive to that fact and the summary was made solely in response to questionable repetition above. I made no assertion that the merits of the comments should be discounted and/or ignored based on bolded prefaces. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
By summarizing the !votes without including their rationale and reasons, you have given undue weight to just the bolded words and implied that the reasons are less important; even if that was not your intent. And, unless you think that User:Zerokitsune is a sock-puppet of another user, I don't understand why his/her !vote was omitted from your summary either. Neier (talk) 23:52, 10 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.