Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Shiroyama


 * 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 without prejudice. I find that there's no real consensus on the issue of whether or not the subject meets WP:ENT. However, this is a poorly sourced BLP. Therefore, if someone wishes to write a new sourced article it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken Shiroyama

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD, long-term unsourced BLP, was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to verify claims of notability here. Additional sources welcomed. --joe deckertalk to me 22:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  D r e a m Focus  00:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --  D r e a m Focus  00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable career. I find it unlikely anyone sincere doubts any of the information there, but if so then find a copy of something listed and fast forward to the credits.   D r e a m Focus  01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article lacks reliable third-party sourcing to verify notability. I note that the Japanese Wikipedia article is also similarly lacking in sources, which suggests that none is available. --DAJF (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced, this does not imply that no sources are available. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  --Malkinann (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't require sources there, if the information is without challenge. Different Wikipedias have different rules and suggested guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  09:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Commeent The article is sourced, if only with a primary source. I would expect additional sourcing to be available in Japanese. OTOH, there are no major roles and a lot of the listed roles are bit parts. Edward321 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Claude Greengrass was a regular character in the book series that inspired Heartbeat, and lasted for a good long while on the show - longer than Nick Berry's character. Bill Maynard, the originating actor for Greengrass, is described here as having played "Claude Greengrass in Heartbeat among many other big roles".  I feel the Claude Greengrass role is a major role.  I don't know about Mike Novick, as I haven't watched 24, but Novick lasted for four seasons as a recurring character.  --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Errr ... I wonder if the Keep proponents are familiar with WP:BLP; any BLP article lacking reliable sources which discuss the subject in significant detail must be aggressively deleted. I also wonder upon which basis the subject's career is blithely declared "notable," and am interested to hear the rationale.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably WP:ENT#1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a fair point. Where that view gets tricky in my view is that, in ENT#1: "significant" and "notable" in that sentence are things that have to be evidenced in some way by sources as well, due to WP:NRVE. Notability we could infer from sources about the film or television show if there are sources on that. But the significance of a role?  I suspect that usually that's going to require much the same sort of things that WP:GNG requires in the way of sourcing. I'm not willing to entirely infer it from "number of episodes", since very minor characters sometimes recur momentarily without reaching significance within a series. I'm sure there's enormous room for disagreement on that point, and I respect that, but I figured it was important to at least address the ENT#1 question, and why, with respect to those who disagree, I felt it hadn't been shown to be reached here.  --joe deckertalk to me 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmhmm. I was wondering myself what made a laundry list of minor roles "significant" other than that there's, well, a list of roles, so they must be significant because, well, they must be.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst it is easily possible to have a "significant" voice-only role in an audio-only medium (such as a radio play), I think it would be very difficult to make a compelling argument for a voice-only role in a visual medium (i.e. dubbing, animation, etc) being "significant". Not saying that it'd never happen, just that it'd be an exceptional circumstance (and need some fairly compelling substantiation, per WP:REDFLAG). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: no indication of "significant roles in multiple notable films [etc]", no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (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.