Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koji Aihara


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Koji Aihara

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

Non-notable author of Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga. Being the author of one book does not meet WP:Notability (people). Extremepro (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1. The page Notability (people) says that one is notable if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - So far I am finding reviews for Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga - 2. I did a Google News search and, in Japanese, here's an article about Koji Aihara appearing at a local convention: http://namba.keizai.biz/headline/760/ (Use Google Translator to see what the article says) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WorldCat confirms that his one book is not considered significant as only a few libraries hold it. If anyone can show reliable sources that provide significant in-depth coverage of Mr. Aihara to establish notability please provide them and notify me on my talk page and I will re-evaluate, I simply do not see them.  Drawn Some (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51181258&referer=brief_results - 17 libraries in North America hold the English version. Keep in mind that there are other language versions that may be held by other libraries. Lemme see how many hold the Japanese version. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing searches for the Japanese versions
 * 2006 edition: No results
 * 1990 edition: Japan foundation, Sydney library
 * So does this mean no libraries in Japan have this book? I doubt it - Does Worldcat support Japan? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is this statement from Daigaku Press Center: http://www.u-presscenter.jp/modules/bulletin/index.php?page=print&storyid=164: "編集者、ライター、マンガ原作者. 相原コージと組んだ『サルでも描けるまんが教室』（89年 小学館）では、マンガを創作の視点から解き明かし、同書を60万部のベストセラーへと導く. 著書、『私とハルマゲドン』（96年 太田出版）他. " - Google translator reads: "Editors, writers, comics authorship. KOJI Aihara, and his classes at a monkey can draw Manga (Shogakukan 89 years), from the perspective of creating a cartoon解KI明KASHI, lead to the best-selling book of 60 million. The book, Armageddon, and I (96 Ohta Publishing)."
 * Comment: Links to several Japanese articles that mention Aihara:
 * 【マンガ５０年】ギャグは爆発する（３）　４コマ革命「不条理」の追究 - Yomiuri Shimbun
 * 美術家　笹埜　能史 - Kobe Shimbun
 * イデアの日 (listing) - Mainichi Shimbun
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that 17 libraries is pretty insignificant especially considering that only half or less are considered "important" libraries. I was just using WorldCat as a check, like an Amazon sales ranking or Google hit number, it's not a criteria in the guideline for notability for an author.  On Gruesome Harvest, which was an AfD yesterday, WorldCat revealed that it was held by dozens of major libraries and that it had a fairly high sales rank and those factors "jived" with the claim of notability. That was a book, not an author.  My use of WorldCat (and Amazon) in here were just to confirm that the author was not notable, his book is not considered significant.  Had I found that it was widely-held or more popular in sales I would have continued looking for resources to prove his notability.  Even on Amazon Japan his (co-authored) book ranks 69,000 and not very high in its specialty areas. I will again point you to WP:NOTE and WP:RS regarding the need for significant in-depth coverage, not just trivial mentions. Drawn Some (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But those 17 libraries cannot possibly be the only ones with his book; those are 17 libraries with the English version, but you also need to measure the Japanese version, and somehow Worldcat isn't coming up with a list for that. Let's take a look at Gruesome Harvest and the Worldcat results.
 * Gruesome Harvest (Keeling 1947): http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2015178&referer=brief_results - 66 libraries (the ones listed are mostly North America with some in South Africa and Namibia)
 * Gruesome Harvest: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/85913732&referer=brief_results - 2 libraries in Europe
 * I didn't see any listed in Japan (then again, this is an English language book) - But your reply did not have an answer to my question: "Does Worldcat support Japan?" - Please use a Japanese title as a comparison. If Woldcat does not gauge how the book is used in Japan, then how could it be used to support the point?
 * Why not follow up on what the Daigaku Press Center said? Surely there could be a source that expands upon what it says, yes?
 * From the look of the Daigaku Press Center release, the author wrote multiple books. This particular book isn't his only one.
 * The Japanese article has a sourced statement: "元来はスピリッツのページが空いてしまったため、穴埋め企画として「従来の漫画賞のパロディ」として始まったが、予想を超えた多数の応募があり、多くの人気作家を生んだ. 2001年から掲載雑誌の『ビッグコミックスピリッツ』で「スピリッツ賞」が始まったため、消滅した . "
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I checked WorldCat and Amazon to confirm that the author wasn't notable as the lack of significant in-depth coverage of reliable sources shows. I'm sorry that I mentioned it, because it seems to have sidetracked you from trying to prove that the author is notable according to WP:NOTE using WP:RS.  I just went the extra steps to make sure that I wasn't making a mistake in concluding that the author is not notable.  I take the deletion of articles very seriously and try to be thorough in research before forming an opinion.  If you find reliable resources providing in-depth coverage or otherwise have information that satisfies the guidelines established for notability later in the week, please notify me on my talk page because I am always willing to consider firm evidence that others uncover. Drawn Some (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Fg2 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - this artist seems to mainly work in the yonkoma format, which does not usually attract as much critical attention. Nevertheless, he has an entry in Manga Design, which I have added to the page, and Paul Gravett's book also covers Even A Monkey....  Hopefully this will do something to combat the WP:HOLE problem which seems to have been why this article was nominated for deletion.  --Malkinann (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As WhisperToMe already explained, the person has worked on at least one series that has already been determined notable, and that makes them notable as one of the creators.  D r e a m Focus  16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very week keep do to his work on Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga, which barely scrapes by WP:CREATIVE. I would prefer to see more coverage as him as a person. Otherwise, this article has not hope of expanding. I would be amendable to a merge/redirect to Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga shows multiple reviews of that work, and new links in article shows actual commentary on his his worl -- passes WP:CREATIVE. That said, a little more biographical info would be nice, but as being a stub, even a permastub, is not a wikicrime, that's irrelevant to an AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2009 (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.