Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naoshi Komi


 * 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. -- jonny - m t  10:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Naoshi Komi

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

Non-notable artist. Google search shows 45 ghits,, but no significant coverage in multiple secondary or third party reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment ~16,500 ghits in Japanese, but still appears to fail WP:BIO. tgies (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep locally famous artist. FYW09 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete:Locally Famous does not make something pass WP:BIO. Fails WP:BIO. Per nom. Rgoodermote  00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely fails WP:BIO and only "source"/link is violates WP:COPYRIGHT. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Artist has received third party coverage in Japanese. I recall his debut short story creating quite a stir; will check to see if I can find any coverage in national newspapers. Page was badly made and probably premature - Double Arts doesn't even have a volume out yet - but there may be more here than it looked like. Doceirias (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang, I was right - he did get coverage in the Asahi Newspaper, but the article is no longer online. Oh well. Either way, I think I found enough to justify a reappraisal. What do we think now? Doceirias (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If its only one newspaper, then no, still delete, or userfy until sources can be found. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think number of newspapers is as important as quality of content therein, especially given the total lack of online resources in Japanese. And newspaper coverage before someone has a hit series is almost unheard of. Normally, yeah, delete and create again when/if Double Arts is a clear breakout hit, and the guy meets more standard project notability requirements, but I think actual newspaper coverage is pretty rare, even for clearly notable artists. I'd say it's worth keeping around. Doceirias (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, it is actually two newspapers - one article is no longer online, but I did find several dead links to it. Don't know how to use that as a reference and not sure how to dig up a two year old Japanese newspaper article to cite the print version when I don't live in Japan, but I think we can assume the source exists. Doceirias (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I happened to navigate my way here and found it useful. HarleyAcres (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation with a properly sourced article. Merely contributing to a magazine is likely to be not enough to meet WP:BIO, and Shonen Jump is certainly a notable manga, but there is very little in the article that sets this person apart from the average freelancer. One specialized award is not enough... even if there were sufficient sources demonstrating the artist's notability (think of the number of American or European comic book artists who don't make the WP:BIO bar, for example). It would be better to put together a more complete, sourced, article and start anew. B.Wind (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: As Dorecias says, this would normally be a delete until Double Arts (or future series) becomes a breakout hit (and from what I've seen and the buzz on fan forums, that certainly seems likely). The award and new coverage are suggestive that the subject has already acheived notablity, but do not to me clinch it; thus, weak delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:52, 23 June 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.