Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chako Abeno


 * 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. JForget 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Chako Abeno

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. This is a non-notable and unsourced WP:BLP article. I searched Google News Archive and found 1 relevant match, which was a passing one-liner mention from activeanime.com. That's it. JBsupreme ( talk ) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. References are available if you search by her name in Japanese, 阿倍野ちゃこ  - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs)  09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs)  09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As creator or co-creator of a more than one notable manga, she would on the face of it pass WP:CREATIVE. Since this information was already present when this AfD was proposed, wouldn't attempting to find sources per WP:BEFORE been the better route? But in any case, beyond that additional sourcing has been added, making this a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastman, Quasirandom, and http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Chako+Abeno%22 --Gwern (contribs) 17:10 31 January 2010 (GMT)
 * Gwern, what is this custom search that you are citing? It says "Wikipedia RSs for manga and anime" but I am seeing tons of blogs? I am intrigued.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to 21st century, where evil vetted RS critics not only review manga on their Reliable Source manga/anime/comics websites but also from their very own personal blog. Saying that those critics are only experts when they write reviews in their RS websites and cease to be experts when they write reviews in their blog would be utter bullshit. From Wikipedia editors point of view this is hellish to use because the dogmatic blog = not RS restriction. --KrebMarkt 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What Kreb said. With a few exceptions, all the blogs being pulled up are either on the Wikiproject's list of online RSs, were cited in the recent discussions about a large network of allied reviewers who publish in said RSs, or are just showing up in the results because they haven't been filtered out. (The CSE has a large whitelist, and blacklist, but everything else is on a 'greylist' - it shows up if it scores high enough anyway.) If any of them are particularly bad and should never show up for any query, feel free to point them out to me. I cleaned up several of the Chako Abeno pages, but I didn't clean past page ~5 of results. --Gwern (contribs) 18:42 1 February 2010 (GMT)
 * Keep Per above, and references from all the notable manga she has worked on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources more than sufficient to pass the relevant notability bar, as demonstrated by Eastmain and Quasirandom. The existence of systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The body of work makes them notable.  D r e a m Focus  20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are reliable sources. - 23:23, 6 February 2010 (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.