Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayako Kato


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ayako Kato

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article reads like a badly written fan page. Subject is not worthy of note. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Article reads like a bad translation (perhaps by Google Translate?) of the Japanese article on the same person. (Which itself looks bad, as do so many articles in ja:WP.) The en:WP article now under discussion was "created" by User:CrisBalboa, whose user page says "I mainly create articles of foreign celebrities". CrisBalboa thereupon provides a list of over 750 of them. The great majority of the titles are Japanese personal names. None is redlinked, and I don't notice any that aren't linked: it seems that en:WP has over 750 of them even now. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. More precisely, here is the article as CrisBalboa first and last edited it (on 14 May 2017); here is what was then the latest version of the ja:WP page about Katō; here is Google's current translation into English word-salad of that version. (Google's algorithms and data may of course have changed over the last couple of years.) Here's a particularly tasty morsel of the Japanese article as it was then: I suppose that could be englished as something like:  (Two quibbles. First, if she can eat X when finely chopped, then it's clear that she doesn't have a real allergy to X. She merely has what in Japanese is called an arerugī, which encompasses actual allergies and mere dislikes. Secondly, this stuff hardly sounds encyclopedic to me. But let's put these quibbles aside for now.) Here's Google Translate's current englishing of the Japanese:  Here's CrisBalboa's version:  I sense a certain resemblance to Google output. But that was back then. Let's see how the translation/prose has improved. It's now:  Any change has been ... minimal. Perhaps we should learn to appreciate this article of lumps, souped in Google Translate. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the fact that it’s quite obvious that the person who wrote this, probably SPA at that, has absolutely no knowledge of the English language... take all that away and the notability factor is still not shown. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG due to sources I found           ミラP 20:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - May be notable, hard to assess though as all of the sources are in Japanese. However, this article is so poorly written and translated that I think WP:TNT is justified. That goes for all of the hundreds(!) of articles that the creator has apparently copied from ja~wp, run through Google Translate, and pasted here without proper attribution. Holy hell, this is bad. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (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.