Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haruka Aizawa


 * 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. Has already had three weeks and the last two relists didn't result in any further input. Michig (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Haruka Aizawa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author has little notability for EN Wikipedia. Has a bunch of works for the particular magazine, at least according to Media Arts DB, but none of the works have reached significance to warrant stuff like an anime adaptation (no ANN entry) or an English adaptation. As notable as an AV film star of the same name. On the JA wiki article, only two of the links go to articles and those aren't even developed. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep both the book cited in Japanese Wikipedia (the printed encyclopedia Mangaka Jinmei Jiten) and the book cited in our WP (the Italian book Come bambole: il fumetto giapponese per ragazze by Mario A. Rumor, which covers the author and her works for several pages, and refers to her as an outstanding author) are reliable and highly reputable sources, enough for a claim of notability IMO. Arguments about redlinks do not carry much weigh, and in any event two bluelinks is way different from no bluelinks (but as I said before, even if they were all bluelinks it would not be a strong argument). Cavarrone 10:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Cavarrone, we've enough sources to establish notability. (I'll also see if I can add some more.) &mdash;innotata 06:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the illustrator apparently exists, beyond that, and the Italian source in the article, I can't find any coverage anywhere in RS in Latin script. Kraxler (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2015 (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.