Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsunori Iketani


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The consensus is the subject fails to meet the WP:GNG guideline for significant coverage -- none has been demonstrated from any source. Additionally, there is some doubt that even the SNG for WP:NMOTORSPORT has been met. The article can be recreated if significant coverage is found or If an editor wants to work on a Draft version of this article, you can contact me or inquire at WP:REFUND. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Katsunori Iketani

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

fails general notability guideline. current sources in article are databases. search only finds other databases and this, which spells his name 2 different ways...? ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak because article creator or editors could've done more such as add results rather than leave it a single sentence stub article. Japanese Wikipedia hints that he may was a driver of a national level but like this, does not provide context too. Digging further, looking at his result database on JAF (source), he may as well pass criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT as he had some sucesses in top level national racing. A selection of highlights in his career as below.


 * A class win at the 1995 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship
 * A top 5 season finish at the 1996 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship
 * Throughout that decade, he made consistent appearances.
 * SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet the Japanese article has the same sources as the English one – the article can't be kept on race results alone, there needs to be some independent, substantive coverage. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole point of having subject-specific guidelines is that verifying that a subject meets that criteria means that their article is kept. In this case, I agree with SpacedFarmer that he meets criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He also meets criteria 2 since he completed the 1988 season of the World Sportscar Championship (by which point the series was a professional racing series). Therefore, I also !vote keep on this article. DCsansei (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that is absolutely not the purpose of SNGs (WP:SNG). SNGs are indicators of when a subject is likely to be notable. Articles still need to meet the GNG: if there are no usable sources, there cannot be an article. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From the guideline you cite: "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article". Unless you've done a review of Japanese motorsports print coverage from the 80s and 90s, I don't think we've established that "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found" to overrule the SNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't prove a negative. We're at AfD, it's on the keep !voters to present sources. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 11:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a different definition of presumed. I define it as meaning that we assume something to be true, meaning that if a subject verifiably passes an SNG, we assume that they merit an article. Per WP:SNG: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic" and "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found."
 * Generally, in a AfD, the onus would be on keep !voters. Given the presumption of notability if a subject passes an SNG, that onus is reversed when that becomes the case per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. I can't find any sources whatsoever. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, but as I cannot be reasonably expected to provide evidence of an absence, we will have to presume that is a fact for now. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, unless you're stating you've comprehensively reviewed print sources from the 80s/90s and were unable to find significant coverage, we'll have to presume that the subject is notable per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have. What a tragedy, Iketani's article deleted because nobody could find a source... how could we allow this to happen to somebody so unquestionably notable? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have – So you speak Japanese and have done in-depth searches in 1980s Japanese racing magazine archives and Japanese newspaper archives? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't just speak it, I'm fluent in it, and the check wasn't just in-depth, it was comprehensive. You could prove me wrong, of course, by presenting examples of these sources you speak of. You won't, obviously, because no such sources exist. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a list of some of the 1980s Japan newspapers / magazines you comprehensively searched, and how you found them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comprehensive means all of them. If you think I've missed something, I'm open to being proven wrong with a few examples of reliable sources. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 15:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you looked at every Japanese newspaper in existence, then surely it should be easy to list a few of them that you searched, no? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment above that he meets criteria 2 and 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete until non-database sources with significant coverage can be presented. While I am sympathetic to the potential of there being offline, likely Japanese-language sources existing, those of us on enwiki who do not speak Japanese should not be burdened with having to find those sources. Until evidence of those sources existing can be found, what exists is purely database in nature. Nothing exists with which to write encyclopedic content in English or Japanese. The subject does not, with the sources available, meet the WP:GNG. The SNG section also says "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG ... may still be deleted ..., especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found...." Wikipedia is not a database. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDATABASE does not cover entries for sportspeople. "those of us on enwiki who do not speak Japanese should not be burdened with having to find those sources." I don't speak Japanese but I don't have much issues with it either, having held subscriptions to some car magazines in the past. Wikipedians write annual pages about sumo wrestling despite most of these sources being in Japanese too. "Until evidence of those sources existing can be found, what exists is purely database in nature. Nothing exists with which to write encyclopedic content in English or Japanese." There are offline books and magazines. So, you are saying we need sources in English language for it to pass notability in English Wikipedia, am I right? SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * that's insane. the not policy covers everything. ltb d l (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This policy is intended for lists, not articles about people. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * where on earth did you get that notion? ltb d l (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I seen it being used on nominations for lists, this is the first I seen being used against a bio of a person. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Japanese but I don't have much issues with it either, having held subscriptions to some car magazines in the past.
 * huh????
 * There are offline books and magazines. So, you are saying we need sources in English language for it to pass notability in English Wikipedia, am I right?
 * that is obviously not what he said. ltb d l (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * may be deleted – not absolutely required no matter what. Common sense is a policy, which is at a higher level and should hold more weight than guidelines such as GNG. If someone is presumed notable and no one has done any searches whatsoever in the areas where sources are highly likely to be found (waiting on 5225C for confirmation), then the article should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete – None of these hypothetical sources exist. It's blatantly obvious that this fails the GNG. SNG are an indication that sources probably exist, they don't make an article immune to challenges on the basis of notability – and, in this case, the corresponding sources have not and will not materialise. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide an answer to @BeanieFan11's question above listing some of the 1980s offline/Japanese newspapers and magazines you comprehensively reviewed since this AfD started? I think that would be helpful given that you want to overrule Iketani's presumption of notability from meeting multiple SNG criteria? Thanks! DCsansei (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * burden is a policy. thanks! ltb d l (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Content policy, yes, which isn't relevant since I'm not arguing for anything to be added to an article. I'm simply repeating the question of what 1980s Japan newspapers / magazines were comprehensively searched to overturn the presumption created under the relevant SNG. DCsansei (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you missed my point. the burden is on the person wanting to keep the article to find sources. asking people to search for 1980s japanese newspapers to maybe possibly bring them over to your side is preposterous. ltb d l (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While that's true generally to prove significant coverage under GNG, that's not the case under an SNG. Unless you're contesting that he meets the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria, there's a presumption of notability unless "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found".
 * By definition, a presumption means that the burden has been flipped to those who wish to override the presumption. DCsansei (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From our own article:
 * "In law, a presumption is an 'inference of a particular fact'. There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. A rebuttable presumption will either shift the burden of production (requiring the disadvantaged party to produce some evidence to the contrary) or the burden of proof (requiring the disadvantaged party to show the presumption is wrong); in short, a fact finder can reject a rebuttable presumption based on other evidence. Conversely, a conclusive/irrebuttable presumption cannot be challenged by contradictory facts or evidence. Sometimes, a presumption must be triggered by a predicate fact—that is, the fact must be found before the presumption applies."
 * Given that SNG create a presumption of notability, the burden has flipped. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how any of that works. The GNG is not subservient to or negated by the existence of an SNG. This exact situation has been discussed at VP numerous times and probably countless times elsewhere. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 15:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * there's a presumption of notability unless "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found".
 * *cough* *cough* ltb d l (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A presumption of notability needs to mean something. It is preposterous that that can be overrided when no one has done any sort of appropriate search whatsoever (not voting keep yet since I haven't confirmed 5225C's doing of this, although I'm starting to have my doubts) – as that essentially means the SNGs are literally 100% worthless. It doesn't make sense that one can delete something on something clearly of significance with zero effort to look in the right places whatsoever, hence why SNGs exist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * so you're so worried about doing an appropriate search? do it yourself. ltb d l (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Doing an appropriate search would require me at minimum learning Japanese, and likely traveling to Japan and paying to look at 1980s newspaper archives – in five days, something that is clearly not possible for me to do. Now, if there's an archive of 1980s Japanese racing magazines and newspapers online, then simply looking at that would be sufficient. But as far as I'm aware such a site does not exist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * something that is clearly not possible for me to do
 * and there's the problem.
 * you can't find the sources, but you believe they exist, so you ask others to search for them to prove your point.
 * isn't that a little crazy? ltb d l (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He passes the SNG. As such, the burden should be on those trying to get it deleted to at least make an effort to look in appropriate places before making claims that he is not notable. No, it is not crazy at all. It is common sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * oh, he passes some arbitrary criteria? so he just has to have sources covering him? ltb d l (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ? It states that coverage is highly likely to exist. We know that coverage is highly likely to exist, and so, that fact stands unless someone actually looks and determines otherwise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you seem to think that "highly likely" means "certainly". ltb d l (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that it is inappropriate to delete highly likely notable articles when no one has done any searches whatsoever. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * screw it. we're never going to convince each other. you keep your article and i'll try and destroy it. sound good? ltb d l (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG either in Japanese or English. Let&#39;srun (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment -, in your reply to me on May 8th, you've effectively said that if we can't prove a negative (that sources don't exist, while no one has proven that they do exist), we should ignore all rules but yet also you're saying here that we need to follow SNGs and give it more weight than the GNG? That makes no sense to me. Furthermore, how exactly are 5225C or other potential delete !voters supposed to satisfy your arbitrary demand for proving this negative? Do we have to learn Japanese in 2 days? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 管理者にあと7日くれと頼めばいい. それで十分だ. ltb d l (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Its as simple as this: we have someone presumed notable. If someone does not look for sources, then that presumption of notability is not successfully rebutted and the article gets kept. To successfully rebut the presumption, a search should be done in sources from the person's language when they were active. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite what is at present, a clear fail of the GNG? I'm not opposing recreation once (or if) sources are located. But at present, we cannot write an encyclopedic article from what are purely database sources. Our job is not to recreate DriverDB, but to write an encyclopedia. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One can not say that an article fails GNG when no search whatsoever has been conducted in the appropriate areas. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. The presumption of notability exists for a reason: it is to prevent notable people from being deleted when poor or no searches were conducted at all by those wanting the article to be deleted. The only way to rebut the presumption is to show that an appropriate search was conducted. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot possibly cite NEXIST when not one single keep !voter has proven the existence of any sources. Remember that we have no deadlines and the article can always be recreated when significant coverage is found. Until then, this article fails WP:NOT as a database entry. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also NODEADLINE to delete articles that as of now you cannot find coverage for. There's a presumption of notability for a reason and it needs to hold weight – as otherwise it is wholly useless. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't keep articles that go against policies such as NOT because of the hypothetical existence of sources that no one has been able to find after 3 weeks at AfD and the whole article's existence. "Presumptions" can only go so far before we have to apply "common sense" &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that presumptions only go so far. However, your implication that rebutting such a presumption can be done by simply saying "fails GNG" without any attempt to find sources whatsoever would mean its not a presumption at all! Also, deletion is not cleanup. Would you mind saying how this is a "summary-only description of a work", "lyrics database", "excessive listing of unexplained statistics", or an "exhaustive log of software updates" (what NOTDB applies to)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With the present sourcing, the only thing that can be added to the article which passes WP:V would be raw statistics such as results tables. That would count against both "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" and the wording at the top paragraph of WP:NOTDB which says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
 * We cannot explain why the statistics are significant without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * However, the statistics have not been added. One cannot claim that this fails NOT as an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" when there's no statistics in the article! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's literally a one-liner stub otherwise. I started my last reply with "With the present sourcing...," which should have been meant to be in the context of what exists, not just what is in the article. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you cannot say that what is currently in the article is all that exists when no one has looked at any sources from the time... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I could go back and repeat my-self again too, but then we'd just be talking in circles and people might see that as WP:BLUDGEONING. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * genuinely, where are we supposed to find 1980s japanese newspapers? ltb d l (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That burden falls should fall on those trying to delete the article when the subject is presumed notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) edit 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i'm gonna go bang my head against a wall if that's ok with you. ltb d l (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say anymore, either. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * seriously, you're just admitting you don't know where sources are and you believe they exist. ltb d l (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And? I don't have access to every source in the world, but I know enough that I can tell if a subject is likely to be covered. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i'm not taking a flight to japan for you. ltb d l (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine; but it means that you can't say with certainty that historic figures from the Japan aren't notable, since no search in the language – where coverage is most likely to be – was performed. I've repeated myself enough... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I've over-commented here. Striking my recent posts and taking a step back. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * so until i go to japan and dig through archives notability is presumed? christ. ltb d l (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Items 2 & 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT are also not met. Item 2 requires at least one season's participation in a major series. Looking at several databases he only competed at Fuji in the 1988 World Sportscar Championship so didn't participate for the whole season. Item 4 requires an overall win, so a class win (13th overall) in the 1995 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship doesn't count, nor does a class place of 5th in the overall positions for the 1996 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship, especially as that class only had 5 competitors. --John B123 (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2024 (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.