Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroko Yamashita (actress) (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hiroko Yamashita (actress)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba  ller  21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - When the article was prodded in 2013 for being unreferenced, I removed the prod, stating "Not a valid reason for deletion. Older unreferenced BLPs are not deleted solely due to being unreferenced. If you searched for sources but couldn't find any, that would be a valid reason for deletion." I stand by that statement.  Furthermore, since sources were presented in the previous AFD, just stating that the article is unsourced seems like an even more insufficient deletion rationale now that it did back before that AFD.  Launchballer, have you reviewed the sources presented in the previous AFD?  If you think the sources don't show notability or otherwise are insufficient to keep the article, then please give an expanded deletion rationale. Calathan (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Being unreferenced is a very good reason to delete an article per WP:BLPPROD.-- Laun  chba  ller  22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you completely missed my point. BLPPROD was exactly the policy I was alluding to when I mentioned "Older unreferenced BLPs".  BLPPROD policy was created after a big discussion, as a compromise position where newer BLPs would be deleted solely for being unreferenced, and older BLPs could not be deleted solely for being unreferenced.  This BLP was created before March 18, 2010, so it cannot be deleted just for being unreferenced.  In order for an older BLP to be deleted, it must meet some other criteria for deletion.  Examples of reasonable criteria would be being unverifiable (i.e., having no sources that can be found, not merely no sources currently in the article), or being non-notable, or being an entirely negative unsourced BLP.  You should consider the sources that were presented in the previous AFD, and either give another deletion rationale if you think they are insufficient, or consider adding them to the article yourself and withdrawing this AFD if you think they are sufficient. Calathan (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

*Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Keep as meeting WP:NACTOR #1, per the sources presented in the previous AFD. Calathan (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete. Given the absence of third-party sourcing and in-depth coverage, notability has not been adequately demonstrated here. --DAJF (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the person who found many of the sources during the first AfD (the result of which was keep), I should apologize for not inserting those references later. I just forgot to do that as I tackled other articles. But the fact still stands: she has had a solid career as a stage, film and TV actress and there are sources to prove that, enough to pass criterion 1 in WP:NACTOR. I have added some of these sources to the article. The main Asahi article, however, I don't have access to at this moment, and will have to add it later. Michitaro (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just make sure that you do and don't forget again. -- Laun  chba  ller  08:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. But given that you only cited the lack of sources when nominating this for deletion, do you have other reasons for continuing this nomination now that there are sources? Michitaro (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. This can only be speedily kept if I withdrew with no outstanding delete votes. There are two. However, this will probably be kept in another couple of days.-- Laun  chba  ller  15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My question had less to do with whether you wanted to withdraw the nomination than whether you have any other arguments for the nomination. Michitaro (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:06, 18 August 2014 (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.