Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nari Kusakawa


 * 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. Consensus is clear, with the nominator conceding that the notability guideline is met. The nominator continues to be concerned that we have no information about the person behind the pseudonym. However, as user:Calathan notes, the article is about the notable pseudonym and the work done using the name - all of which is verified.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nari Kusakawa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. This BLP contains no reliable sources and it concerns a person about whom we know almost nothing except for the fact that she's a manga artist. We have no sources for basic biographical information about this person. We don't even know her name. The article even admits that "her manga are generally unknown". — S Marshall T/C 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Cavarrone has subsequently removed the "generally unknown" remark.— S Marshall T/C 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even if the article itself is in a very poor state, I deproded it as I noticed several GNews hits about the subject's works, mainly reviews, enough in my opinion to pass WP:ARTIST#3, "The person has created...a collective body of work, that has been the subject of...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". I deleted the unsourced, POV claim in the article that her works are unknown, as her works are translated and published in English by DC Comics/CMX and in French by Delcourt, not exactly a treatment given to something unknown. - Cavarrone (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that her manga were published by the defunct DC comics imprint. But I think that what you're showing is coverage of the works, not coverage of the person.  I don't think that notability can be inherited from the work to the author, can it?  If I'm wrong I'm happy to withdraw the AfD.— S Marshall  T/C 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As Cavarrone notes, WP:AUTHOR #3 does state that the notability of a work can be used to establish the notability of the author of that work. Michitaro (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, if it's a "significant body of work". We're talking about four comic books here, though. I think the threshold for "significant body of work" is a body of work that's produced genuine literary criticism, isn't it?— S Marshall  T/C 08:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since WP:AUTHOR #3 states that the work should have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," there is no demand that it produce genuine literary criticism. Independent reviews are sufficient. The same criterion implies that adaptations into other media like film are also sufficient. Kusakawa's work has been adapted into CD dramas as well as translated into English, French, and even Chinese. Michitaro (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a CD drama or a foreign-language translation is the same as an independent book or feature-length film. I think the key word there is independent.— S Marshall  T/C 16:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 02:07 10 January 2012 (GMT)
 * Keep. Looking up some of the hits that Gwern introduced, it is clear that Kusakawa has produced a body of work that has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". There are reviews here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's only a small sampling, because there are more in English and I didn't even search French, Japanese or Chinese sites. If one complains that these are just fan sites (which is not the case), I can add that her work has appeared in the Top Ten Manga list of Publishers Weekly (the main industry magazine), and was even selected by the Young Adult Library Services Association (a division of the ALA, the main library organization in the USA) as one of the 2009 Great Graphic Novels for Teens. She clearly satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Michitaro (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to quibble that. I'm now prepared to stipulate that she passes WP:AUTHOR. But it does seem to leave us with a problem of WP:V.  We literally have no verifiable information about Nari Kusakawa at all.  All we can verify is that Nari Kusakawa isn't her name.  That strikes me as way too thin to justify a BLP.  I think you might have enough sources to justify an article about her comic books, but I don't think you have the sources to justify an article about her as a person.  I suggest that we use the sources you've found to write a list of works by Nari Kusakawa.  My position remains that we have no sources for a BLP and therefore that Nari Kusakawa should be deleted.— S Marshall  T/C 12:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 09:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The PROD should have stuck: BLP's need sourcing. This article has an extremely minor source to their work, but nothing about the person.  BLP's in this state cannot remain on Wikipedia ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the BLP policy now mandated that a particular piece of information must be supplied and referenced; what is this crucial piece of information, pray tell? Is it now mandatory to have real names? Birth-dates? Residences? --Gwern (contribs) 19:56 17 January 2012 (GMT)
 * While I don't have a very strong opinion on whether this person is notable enough that the article should be kept, I want to say that I strongly disagree with Bwilkins assertion that this article is unsourced or that lack of sourcing is a problem with this article. There is absolutely no requirement that a person's real name or biographical information be known in order for them to be notable.  If there is sufficient coverage of someone under a psudonym, then they certainly can have an article.  Furthermore, this article is in no way unsourced, as it provides sources for the various pieces of information included in the article.  In fact, this article does a good job of avoiding containing unsourced information by only providing information for which a source can be found.  While there is a lack of coverage about this person (as opposed to their works), and that is a real concern in whether this article should be kept, saying that this is an unsourced BLP is completely mistaken and just confuses the issue. Calathan (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep article has enough reliable sources to pass WP:AUTHOR#3. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, the person does pass WP:AUTHOR.  D r e a m Focus  07:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, have you misunderstood? We know this lady passes the specific notability guideline.  The question is what verifiable content we have for a BLP (and the answer is none, not even her name).— S Marshall  T/C 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, with sources as indicated above, passes WP:AUTHOR easily. Dreadstar  ☥   03:32, 25 January 2012 (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.