Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira Fujimoto


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Akira Fujimoto

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article does not demonstrate notability of person. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * keep Yes the article clearly demonstrates the notability of the person in the area of computer graphics, based on reliable thrid party references: technical books and major industry (CG) journals, as well as personally: how many Poles you know who were granted Japanese citizenship? Not to mention media attention. - Altenmann >t 15:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article at present very clearly does not demonstrate the notability of the person in the area of computer graphics. It appears to be a vanity article and possibly an autobiography. There are references to just three papers, and a rather POV discussion of how some Japanese people were surprised by his software. So, it clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC criteria. If you believe this person has made a significant contribution to graphics which is not demonstrated in the article, perhaps you should edit the article to demonstrate what. Becoming a Japanese citizen is not notable by itself; there are many thousands of non-Japan-born people doing this every year, from a variety of countries. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Two large interviews in major computer graphics journals is hardly vanity, but respectful notability. His contribution ot computer graphics is not grounddbreaking, but known to specialists, and his citation index is good. There was not "how some Japanese people..." it was police investigation with lots of noise in Japanese press. Your way of twisting facts is not commendable. Your phrase "not demonstrated" baffles me. It is demonstrated and refferred to a survey paper. Are we reading the same article? - Altenmann >t 01:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Altenmann. As I said I judged this article against the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. While he has had some published papers, this is true for any number of people who work in academia, and it doesn't qualify as notability unless it can be demonstrated that he has had some influence, as discussed at the criteria. Can you please demonstrate how he meets the above criteria? Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he was not an academic. And he was notable enough for major industry journals (did say this twice already?) to do large interviews. Bieng included in a survey of computer graphic approaches in a major computer graphics book means notability in industry. And this is enough notability to me. It is good that wikipedia has higher notability statndards for academics that for pornstars: you don's ask whether big bare tits had some influence. Surely they had, without question. - Altenmann >t 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What notability guidelines does he meet then? enough notability for me, so maybe you could put this article on your personal blog. Can you argue from the Wikipedia policies? JoshuSasori (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont have a personal blog. And you are free not to include him in your personal blog. If you don't know which guideline is applicable to such cases, may be you don't have to vote in such cases. I presented my arguments. You mocked them. Once again, your way to carry out a discussion strikes me as inappropriate. I am no longer talking to you. Let other people have their say. - Altenmann >t 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article's references consist of academic publications by the person concerned I suppose the academic criteria are the ones to apply. I don't see how he is notable, and you don't seem to have a cogent response. Why do you think I am mocking your arguments? your way to carry out a discussion strikes me as inappropriate hum JoshuSasori (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I ran a quick Google search for 藤本 彰 to see what I could see, knowing zero Japanese, and observe that there is a NOTABILITY flag up on the article on this subject at Japanese Wikipedia. Bearing in mind that doesn't mean anything here, that might mean something here... Carrite (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - A search through IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications here for his name brings up exactly five articles from the 1986-1992 time period in a trade publication. Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi have nothing on the 1987 "incident" referenced; even if there were, WP:NOT applies to this individual in question. Naturalization in Japan is no grounds for WP:N since Lafcadio Hearn with very few exceptions such as Marutei Tsurunen. This article fails WP:N and WP:RS and there is no room for consideration of improvement in either. I would push for this to be Salted were it not for the chance an individual may qualify under WP:ENT with the same Romanized name in the near or distant future. Jun Kayama 16:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I do not have access to the sources cited, but as far as I can tell this person is no more notable than the average successful businessman. Consensus on the wiki is that we do not need articles on such people. At the very least, about half of the content should probably be cut as being poorly referenced trivia. -- LWG talk 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - have to agree, the subject does not look like it meets WP:GNG. An interesting fellow, maybe, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. Would also not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC as an expert in his field, though the original author contends this criteria should not be applied. Given the company itself has not been considered notable enough for it's own article, this serves as the article covering both the company and its founder. As such, if the company itself was notable, we could propose an article covering it instead, with a section on its founder and redirect this article there. But I can't find anything that would suggest the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH to the extent where it would warrant its own article. Could perhaps userfy to allow User:Altenmann to work on it in his own space if he thinks it can be saved... Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not interested to jump through the hoops to convince y'all that a person who was granted two major interviews in main industry journals is more notable and more important to mankind than a pornstar. - Altenmann >t 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but you should be aware that the standard burden of proof applied to begin with and the article should have been properly sourced from the start. So realistically, had you jumped through those hoops at the start (as required and as stated beneath every article editing window), we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Not doing so, and then refusing to engage here is not particularly helpful to the consensus-building process. A number of editors have since suggested sources for the article and these are being debated/considered. It's up to you whether you want to be involved in that process or not. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment - The Kyodo news reports quoted do not lead to live URLs, and as stated previously, Yomiuri et al lead to dead ends. The USAF publication no longer exists. No one should have to pay USD19 for an article out of IEEE or JPY3500 for a Kyodo subscription to get the facts on a minor criminal investigation. Those five articles in IEEE are the only basis for WP:RS and they date from 1987-1992 with no leads to follow-on sources. Whether the publication itself meets WP:N is questionable at best. There is nothing in Japanese language sources which establishes WP:N. Datamining to find "significant coverage" to defend this article is the equivalent of dumpster diving. The only credible outcome here is deletion. Jun Kayama 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - For what it's worth, the corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia is also tagged for questionable notability. Dekimasu よ! 06:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per LWG. In fact this article could be speedy deleted per WP:CSD, as the only claim of notability – "the first commercially feasible rendering software system called ARTS (Accelerated Ray Tracing System)" – (if true at all) should have been reported in Accelerated Ray Tracing System article (which currently doesn't exist), and claim of the subject's notability can be found in this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Send to the Recycle Bin. Neither him nor his company have been deemed notable by reliable sources. He may be an interesting person, but so are the 7 billion others on Earth. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's plenty of source information on Akira Fujimoto, from as early 1995 and as late as November 2011. While those two sources merely establish the range from which to draw source material, there is enought reliable source material between those dates to meet WP:GNG and write a Wikipedia article on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this meant to be a joke? It's obvious from reading those articles that they're about two different people with the same name. One is a T-shirt seller in Little Tokyo in the USA, and the other one is president of a supermarket (Maxvalu Nishinihon). There is no evidence at all that either one of them is the same person as the subject of this article, and there is no evidence of notability in either of the articles. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Source coverage includes:
 * Significant coverage:
 * Significant coverage:
 * Significant coverage:
 * Significant coverage:
 * Other coverage would include a good likelihood of source material in Polish language and that not on the Internet. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All of thes sources don't demonstrate his notability – probably the notability of his product. BTW the first four are about the single event and thus are considered as one source per WP:N. FWIW it would be a natural choice to selectively merge this article into Accelerated Ray Tracing System, but it doesn't exist. As the sources are listed here, there is no need to preserve the article in subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW there is an article about him on Polish Wikipedia, and it has yet less sources. Though it doesn't mean that there are no good sources in Polish, it means that he is not of much interest to Polish sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All of thes sources don't demonstrate his notability – probably the notability of his product. BTW the first four are about the single event and thus are considered as one source per WP:N. FWIW it would be a natural choice to selectively merge this article into Accelerated Ray Tracing System, but it doesn't exist. As the sources are listed here, there is no need to preserve the article in subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW there is an article about him on Polish Wikipedia, and it has yet less sources. Though it doesn't mean that there are no good sources in Polish, it means that he is not of much interest to Polish sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not sure if any of the Kyodo News reports or the Air Force documents are significant coverage of him or not. It seems that they are actually about incidents that involved him, not actually about him. Even the Air Force documents are not significant coverage of him, it only mentions his name. The most promising of the sources given above would most likely be the interview, and even then I'm not sure if it will be enough for establishing notability (although it can be used in expanding the article should be kept). I also tried searching using his birth name (Polish name) but results were inconclusive. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not convinced that the sources provided actually establish sufficient notability to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The near-illusory Kyodo reports in question point to notability for this individual solely in terms of a minor criminal investigation, so even if those sources are legitimate, whatever article that remained would not be congratulatory. Jun Kayama 17:46, 19 September 2012 (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.