Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachiko Watanabe


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sachiko Watanabe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - local politician with little coverage in independent, reliable sources.  Dr Strauss   talk   13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well, there is a ja.wiki article with a few sources. And it looks like they were tapped for a national taskforce related to wasteful public spending. She was apparently the keynote speaker and... some... sort of academic conference. It's really hard to say definitively without someone who can weigh in on the non-English sources. But it is easy to suspect that the reason we have a substantial article on the mayor of Chattanooga and not on the mayor of Tama, is because there are more people around who speak Tennessee than speak Japanese.  G M G  talk   14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. I can't read Japanese, so I can't speak to whether the Japanese sources on the ja wiki are reliable or substantive — I can only evaluate this on the basis of what's present in the English version. But once I stripped the inappropriate bulletlist of unsourced quotations and the pointless comment on how her first and last names are so common that her name is basically the Japanese equivalent of "John Smith", all that was left is "she exists". And the only reference cited at all is a single article in a university student publication about her speaking at a conference. The difference between this and Andy Berke isn't that more people here speak Tennessee than Japanese; it's that Andy Berke's article actually contains substance and reliable sources, neither of which are present here. And since AFD does not represent a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article at all, deletion of this inadequate version does not prevent somebody from trying again if they can do better. She'd surely be kept if somebody who can read Japanese could write and source a halfway decent article — but there's no need to keep a stub that's this unsubstantive and this poorly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could use a few more Japanese readers to weigh in on sources.
 * Comment It is clear that the subject was/is the Mayor of Tama, Tokyo, with a population of 140,000+. The Japanese Wiki site has several links to articles about the subject in the Tama New Town Times and a link to a Geocities site which appears to have election results from 2002. There is also this article in Stars and Stripes (newspaper) referring to the subject as the Mayor. That all said, while I expect that the subject is notable, I am not quite confident that the existing sourcing is sufficient for a local politician (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). Perhaps the article should be tagged with WP:AFI --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 08:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete mayors at this level are not notable without a lot more sources than exist in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2017 (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.