Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeda Oikawa


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Keeda Oikawa

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The notability of this person is questionable. Additionally, the article does not cite any sources and it is written like a résumé., with most of the article being a poorly formatted list. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is overly promotional in tone, and is not sufficiently sourced per BLP standards. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - while I could find lots of possible sources, they are distinctively weak. Much of her art is commercial, see  and, or is sourced in horrible Engrish, see .  I also can't find any news articles about her.  So I'm leaning towards a delete. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bearian that sources exist, but they paint at best someone who seems to fall in the gray area of WP:ARTIST C4. If some of the exhibitions that have shown her work can demonstrate notability with multiple news sources covering it, that might cover it, but so far I've yet to find more than one per. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'm with a weak delete too. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 05:15, 20 July 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.