Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimitoshi Yamane


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kimitoshi Yamane

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable "mecha designer"; creator claims there are sources proving notability, but the only ones provide either just stated "Yamane designed the mechs for this series/film" or are on disc/tape series extras that are primary sources and useful for production sections of those series, but do not establish any notability at all for him (essentially self-published-style stuff). Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Not actual significant coverage has yet to be produced for this person. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - this article's subject is on ANN and ja-wiki as well as several other sources. The article's subject is a renowned mecha designer, well-known for supervising the mecha designs for Vision of Escaflowne, Cowboy Bebop, Xam'd: Lost Memories and several others. His involvement in these works have been detailed and published over numerous anime-based magazines such as Newtype (later to be translated for its USA issues), Animage and numerous others. He has also published numerous works on mecha design and is amongst the most highly-regarded in the anime industry. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks to Google Books (which is a most limited resource, unfortunately, I must tell you), I have found an excellent book: Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews by the very well-known authors Fred Patten and Carl Macek, which mentions Yamane glowingly (in page 359) as a co-creator of Cowboy Bebop, also referring to his involvement in the movie Cowboy Bebop: Knockin' on Heaven's Door as being part of the "same dream team of creators" that created the original Cowboy Bebop TV series. This is a particularly glowing reference from two who are amongst the noted American authors on anime, and this I found thanks to Google Books, that is hard to navigate. I'm sure that I would be able to find far more if I was provided with an actual library of anime books (I believe there are a few though I don't have access to these) or even magazines, I would be able to find much, much, much more. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clowing? There is nothing glowing there! That ref just repeats that he was part of the crew. Again, not significant coverage. Again, great reference for the production history of Cowboy Bebop but does not establish this man's individual notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to what others have already said, the book mentions he was a "co-creator" and part of the "dream team" that "created" the original series (added quotes to reflect the actual wording). As Nohansen and C S have mentioned, him being a creator of the show is of note and is quite notable, and I agree with them. This proves that he was definitely involved in the co-creation of this show. Also, this book is not a type that would refer to simply every animation on earth - no, this book refers to the most influential and widely-talked about anime and manga series that have influenced several aspects of society. I would urge you to read this superb book thoroughly as it is a gem authored by two, very well-known authors. This is only by means of a Google search though, a librarian who has far more reach than I, would be able to provide far more books. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 03:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Collectonian, please take it easy. Your editing behavior and comments thus far (including the article discussion page) are overtly hostile.  This is not a battle.  The ref does not just say he was "part of the crew".  It describes him as a "leading member" of the creative team that created Cowboy Bebop.  He is one of the handful of main credits named in the opening theme song (before the listing of multiple names on one screen).  It's hard for me to believe that you would see all this and think  he's just "crew", e.g. one of the fifty or so people involved in the production.  --C S (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a general statement, and he is just part of the crew. I've yet to see any actual significant coverage about this man as a person, which is what a biography should cover. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 357 clearly states five names from the creative team. The leader was Shinichiro Watanabe and "other leading members were", followed by four names including Yamane.  That you would interpret this as a "a general statement"...I'm flabbergasted.  If it weren't any clearer, later further down that page, the authors comment that "The space adventure...that Watanabe's team came up with..."  Then on page 359, it is mentioned that these people are the '"dream team" of creators' that came up with Cowboy Bebop.  Since you can't seem to access the same reference everyone else can, I'm starting to wonder on what basis you are making your judgment.  --C S (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so he is significant in one series. That still does not meet either WP:N nor WP:ENTERTAINER. In all other credits he is just noted as the mecha designer with no significant coverage (and even these now two pages are NOT significant coverage, he's mentioned in passing as part of the team, while the book itself is focusing on the series, not him or any of the others). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A mechanical designer is a 'very important figure involved in the creation of anime series - and he doesn't just design robots but the vehicles, buildings and basically anything that might run on a machine - in science fiction shows, they are often the actual core-creators and in anime programs, where a team must work together in order to produce said show, or any show, they are essential in the creation. They are highly important figures in the industry and Mr. Kimitoshi Yamane isn't just "significant" in "one" or "two shows" - he has been responsible for the creation and development of several pioneering anime. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 05:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Collectonian, I must change/add my reply here after seeing your revert of my addition of this reference to the article, not because you reverted it, but because you said you cannot view the page that I mentioned as a very important reference on Google Pages. You might not be aware of Google Pages, that is why I mentioned its format is troublesome, but they only provide a few pages for view on Internet Explorer, however Opera manages to view page 359 perfectly. Again, if your browser does not show the page, then please do not rely on Google Pages as it is merely a preview resource - refer to a library copy of the book, or you can also buy the book if you like. But nonetheless, it is mentioned there, very clearly, and in glowing terms, that he did infact co-create Cowboy Bebop, and it does not mince words in the slightest. I have provided that all that is possible with my meagure resources, as I do not have access to any library containing any anime books of any kind, but if these resources are removed as well and my edits reverted simply because your browser cannot view the page, then I cannot do anything whatsoever. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 04:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted my edits yet again. You claimed that all I did was add the same page from the book - but this is false as I even mentioned in my initial edit summary that I was referring to page 359, not 357 as was the case with the previous reference. If you cannot view it, it views clearly on Opera. If you cannot view this, please refer to the book on a library or buy it. The cite book template only mentions that you have to mention a source where to buy the book, if it is hardcover or published book, I cannot provide an actual URL. That is how Google Pages runs. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 04:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Google books does NOT have page 359. This does NOT change based on browser, its the same on all systems. If you have the book, cite the book not Google books, otherwise I question how you know what page 359 says. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it does. Rather than questioning, an assumption of good faith would be good here.  Thus far, in discussion, and in your frequent reversions, you seem to be battling it out. --C S (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Google Pages DOES indeed have the book. And it views PERFECTLY on Opera. Here is a screenshot that I have personally made to help: . Okay, so you cannot see it, then please get the book yourself or refer to a library - but why must you remove my reference, or modify it and exchange in reverting my edits? I have not lied, this book is very well-known and real, and really I am not as well-connected to get myself an anime library in a moment's notice, but this is what I have found, in order to save this article, and you are just reverting my edits and disregarding anything that I am saying. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 04:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up your references, removing the URL as it only works for you, not for others (and; FYI, I'm using Firefox, so stop presuming you know what browsers it does or does not work in; nor is the URL necessary at all, its extraneous and only helpful if it works for all people). It takes me to page 357, not 359, and scrolling down to 359 says page not available. Cleaning up and fixing reference formatting is fully appropriate. Even from your own screen shot, it is not significant, it his his name listed among a list of creators for the series (and I feel your way of stating it is a misstatement of that line, but left it there). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (enough colons I hope) Ganryuu's links worked fine for me on Firefox, but I use the Mac beta version . Anyhoo, it appears we now all agree that Yamane is credited as a co-creator of Cowboy Bebop.  Given the significance of this particular series, I would suggest just this alone satisfies WP:CREATIVE.  And he's not just a one-hit wonder.  I would argue he was not "just crew" on those other famous shows where he is a main credit.  --C S (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The page does work perfectly for Opera and Google users - again, I mentioned previously, Google Pages is an extremely complicated site - I mentioned it more than once. Some books do not even load at all and sometimes the only way to reach it is through a Google search. This is why I mentioned it is a very limited resource, as you just have to buy the book to get its information. I have noticed this many times while creating Japan-based articles (often the sources for Japan-based topics are so scarce that you have to refer to 100-year journals as I did while creating Hiiragi the plant, and found much to my displeasure that I would have to buy this journal to read it fully, which is not cheap since it is almost a century old). I mentioned this also on my initial edit, which you simply disregarded and reverted. Again, I would ask you to get this book for yourself if you want to read further than one or two pages. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC
 * I am a Google user, thanks. So please quite presuming you know why it is not showing for me. And quit saying buy the book, its annoying. You claimed Google Books had the page, the URL did not work. It was fully appropriate to question it when you yourself don't have the book either. That the URL only apparently works for you (and maybe C S who didn't clarify if the URL works for him or if he just looked at your screenshot) makes it perfectly reasonable to both question it and to remove it from the article per linking guidelines that online versions references only available to some people should not be linked too (which is why we don't attempt to link to archived articles on pay to see sites)-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the URL works perfectly for anyone who has Opera and is registered to Google's mail and other services. I do not design the site, so yes, I have no right to say why it does not show for you, however, I am aware of how it runs and since I am interested in such things can provide a reasonable to explation to why it might not work for you. But, the cite tag actually does not require or even say in any way that you have to show an URL where you can actually view the book - that is almost impossible for resource journals and books that have been published since the 1900s - all it does say is that you can add a link where people who want to read the book for themselves for whatever reason can buy it. As far as I am aware of the reference policy, I can indeed reference a book, its pages, ISBN and even provide a suitable resource where some users can view the page in question (again, there are several Linux or Mac users that use different browsers, for them the results might be different as well), and then at least expect my edits and reference not be completely reverted and removed from the article in question, especially an article that might be soon gone. Well, you have your reasons for questioning my edits, but I have done all that I can with my resources. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 04:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I am a registered Google user but thanks again for your attempted explanation. Also, again, the URL field is NOT for people to read the book themselves nor a buy link. It is primarily for pointing to a valid on-line version. Either way, that page is apparently only for a very limited subset of users, again, it is not appropriate to include as it does not work for the majority of users. Your edit is still there, with the URL removed, per your screenshot. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really do not wish to argue on semantics or tech details, but it only does not work on Internet Explorer, which has several issues, from what I have seen. However, the link works absolutely perfectly for Opera and Firefox users - Opera is merely a few mbs of download so it should not take much time to download it and test for yourself. Since this is easier than actually going ahead and buying it, I would recommend everyone to try it for themselves, and no I am not an Opera salesman, merely trying to recommend a way how people can read it for themselves. So the URL is quite valid, and people who have those browsers or those willing to download them, should be able to read those so I don't think that 's a "limited subset of users". But still, if there's a policy which obligates the total use of Internet Explorer, I guess I can live with the URL being gone forever. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 05:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering I've now said multiple times that I am a Google editor and using Firefox, your repeated claims are obviously false and show you are apparently not bothering to really read my responses. It is only working for Opera and Mac Firefox Beta users, which is a very limited subset of users, comparatively speaking. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually Opera is used by millions of users worldwide. It is not limited in the least and virtually the entire mobile phone industry uses it, which I might add, accounts for a huge proportion of users. And there are also several millions who will be able to see it, but we're not software testers who have any reach in those sort of things. If it doesn't work for you on Firefox, then why not download Opera? This is an article's integrity we're talking about. And for an article you yourself has nominated, then I would say it is of paramount importance. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 05:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Opera is not one of the top two browsers in the world, nor do most people use mobile phones to read Google books. Claiming millions of Wikipedia readers will be able to see it is purely false and showing your fan love of the browser. Go check some real stats. Opera has less than 1% of the browser market share per multiple reliable sources. And sorry, but I'm not switching to a substandard browser to see a single resource nor should I nor ANYONE ELSE have to switch browsers to see a damn source. Your suggest is purely ludicrous and completely against Wikipedia's desires to be accessible to all readers regardless of browser. You seem overly fond of making sweeping, unsupported statements. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, it really seems that you think I'm a real fan. I was actually referring to the mobile phone industry, which actual stats and the very article here on this Wikipedia, state that most mobile phones are equipped with Opera and it is actually virtually the most widely endorsed and downloaded mobile (and Symbian) browser in the mobile phone industry. If you disagree and still think I'm a fan, then I would just ask you to read those articles. I am sorry if I made any sweeping, unsupported statement, but I think most of what I have said are based on actual facts. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 05:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in regards to your statement that I am a "fan", supposedly, in other places and here, I must inform you that I am not really a "fan" of Kimitoshi Yamane, in fact, I have not even met him and I haven't really seen even one quarter of his works, which aren't my favourite either. I only translated this article from the Japanese Wikipedia as this has always been like a hobby of mine. But that does not mean I actually am a fan or greatly admire them or their works. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Opera displays the pages is irrelevant to this discussion. The information has been verified as I own the book and looked it up, and then corrected the refs accordingly. Please stop arguing, both of you, as it is doing nothing to continue the discussion of the actual topic at hand here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As Nihonjoe says, there is no requirement for reference sources to be viewable online, but for the record, I am able to view this infamous page 359 on both Firefox and Internet Explorer browsers running on Windows. --DAJF (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise for going off the topic, I suppose it might be an update issue but yes, you're right - that has nothing to do with this topic. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 05:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Yamane does not fail WP:CREATIVE. Criteria three reads "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". As a (founding) member of Artmic, Yamane played a major role in the creation of Bubblegum Crisis, Detonator Orgun and Gall Force.--Nohansen (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, let's not forget Cowboy Bebop. --C S (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mecha designer, or mechanical art designer, is an important role in Japanese animation (often one of the main credits).  Yamane has quite a substantial resume, having worked on a number of important anime.  I see no reason he fails the notability criteria.  I see no reason to doubt Ganryuu's more than reasonable claims that there are suitable 3rd party references available describing Yamane's work.  It would have been a more community-oriented attitude to have given Ganryuu some time to add them (it has been only 7 hours since article creation).  --C S (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability criteria now appear to have been satisfied, although the main editor involved might do better by maintaining a more objective tone and avoiding peacock terms such as "renowned" and "glowing" etc. --DAJF (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. As a founder of ARTMIC, as well as being a co-creator of multiple significant and well-known works, the only thing required now is to improve the article with more references (there is already a decent start). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Obviously notable, heavily sourced. Edward321 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2008 (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.