Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seiyū


 * 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   Speedy keep. I interpret the nominator's comment below, "further deletion requests, even if they follow Wikipedia guidelines for AfD (as this AfD did not)" as indicating that he accepts this AfD is unnecessary and can be closed (as indeed is the consensus among other editors). Individual points brought up here can be followed up on the article's talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Seiyū

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The Seiyū talk page has a discussion asking the purpose of the article. Essentially many people question the necessity of "Seiyū" and other articles like it, where article writers name articles using a Japanese word that has NOT entered into the English language lexicon, versus naming it for what it really is. In the case of "Seiyū", it means "voice actor" in Japanese, however the word "Seiyū" is not a word that English-speaking people use at all. Specific quotes of interest include:
 * "I still don't understand why 'seiyu' must be used on all pages. While voice acting might be a bigger deal in Japan than America, isn't the term ultimately referring to the same exact thing? A Voice Actor? Should we rename every single thing that is more popular in another other foreign language by any degree to their language, even if they mean THE SAME DAMN THING??"
 * "I had no idea what a seiyu is and its use seems entirely arbitrary on pages other than the seiyu page as it encapsulates the exact same meaning as voice actor."
 * "...should this page even be called "seiyu"? Why not "Voice acting in Japan", much in the same way it's Professional baseball in Japan and not "Dai-nippon Tōkyō Yakyū Kurabu" (or however the Japanese themselves refer to their own baseball league)?"

And it goes on. Others feel that this article should be renamed. I thought so to, but after reading some of the other comments that criticize more than the necessity of the article, such as the actual article title "Seiyū" goes against proper formatting for Japanese words on Wikipedia and that it has numerous unsourced statements, I think it would be best to simply delete the article outright.

Now based on the criteria listed on the Wikipedia deletion policy, I think the article violates:
 * Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

It also doesn't pass the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" bit, seeing as "Seiyū" is a word that the article is attempting to define, seeing as the word "Seiyū" is not a word that has entered into the English lexicon. Again, that's where some people think it should be at least renamed to "Voice acting in Japan" (although other instances of "Seiyū" in other articles should be replaced). And if I really wanted to be vindictive, I could also say that this article doesn't pass the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" bit as well, because I could argue that there are way too many anime fans here who feel Japanese words, concepts, and other such things have greater importance than other similar things from other cultures/languages, to the point where they have to write articles promoting them. I mean, why do we have an article about Japanese voice actors while none for specifically German, French, and Spanish voice actors?

Now if anyone decides to vote "KEEP" for this article, answer yourself this: how is Japanese voice acting any MORE important than voice actors of other country that they not only deserve their own article, but that the article title MUST be the Japanese word for "voice actor" versus "Voice Acting in Japan"? Nick15 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep for failing to provide a valid ground of nomination. Inappropriate title is absolutely not a ground for deletion - a move can be proposed on the article's talk page, or even create a page named "Voice acting in Japan" and redirect here. Whether moved or not, I'm indifferent, but delete, I think no. For other reason mentioned:
 * I tried searching on Japanese Google with "Seiyu Lekishi" (Japanese, "Voice actor"+"History") and the result is beyond satisfactory (You can really imagine...), so I don't think either the "No RS" claim or the "not notable" claim can stand. (If articles about voice acting in other country do not exist, it is simply because there is yet to be someone working on them, and not that they should not exist.)
 * The article essentially describes "voice acting in Japan" and has far more content than lexicographic description, thus "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not apply at all. Blodance (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Google hits is a fallacy, as per WP:GHITS. Tons of hits on Japanese Google (not even ENGLISH Google) is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Nick15 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong or speedy keep. The 'unsure about the name' argument is right out. Personally, since seiyu is not an English word in the same way sushi and tsunami are (evidenced by the fact that it can be spelled either "seiyu" or "seiyuu"), the article should remain at seiyū. But AFD is not requested moves. As for "why this, but not French, etc.", good question. But I look at this, and see how seiyu have fan clubs, are well-known, etc. In the United States, the only way anyone knows a voice actor's name is if he's independently famous, or on The Simpsons. It's a foreign concept, and one worth exploring. --Golbez (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, there is no English term for sushi or tsunami, as well as samurai and ninja, all of which have entered into the English language lexicon to denote a very specific thing. However seiyu is translated as "voice acting", even by those who speak Japanese, just like "neko(?)" is translated into "cat". Yes, sushi, tsunami, samurai and ninja are Japanese words, but when you use speak those words to an English-speaking person, they know what you mean. When you say "Seiyu", unless you are an anime fan (or happen to visit Wikipedia and saw it), you won't know what that means. - Nick15 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that there are several Japanese magazines that exclusively cover the subject, such as Voice Animage and Seiyū Grand Prix. The article does need a lot of work, but AfD is not cleanup. Discussions about the articles name should be done through a move request and not through AfD. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - WP:POINTy nom, made to "force someone's hand," according to the article talk page. 1) AfD is not cleanup, 2) WP:TLDR. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep There is no question that Seiyū/Voice acting in Japan deserves an article. The nominator's question here is what to call it. Threatening to delete the article because one disagrees with the current title is a classic case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Someone might want to link this as an example at that page... Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:POINT, and possible snow keep. I do however notice the article is in need of cleanup, some work needs to be done to avoid another possible AfD in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination as the nominator's comments on the article talk page clearly show. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete the article. I agree the nominator started this AFD for the wrong reasons .   D r e a m Focus  17:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize about POINT and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kinda figured there would be some protocal to prevent something like this from happening, so I accept any consequences that comes from that. HOWEVER, the now obviously questionable reasons/actions I took for requesting a delete should not negate most of the opinions already listed on the Seiyu talk page, which I can assure you I had nothing to do with (save for one or two). In fact, it seems like most of the "Speedy Keep" votes here seem to only be because of my questionable actions and less about the actual article itself. Therefore, if this article does not get deleted for my reasons, SOMETHING needs to be done given many of the valid points brought up on the talk page, unless someone can give a good reason to counter EVERY point brought up on the talk page. - Nick15 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To which, I take it any discussion for the legitimacy of the article should be done on the actual Talk page versus here? That is, discussion here is only about whether or not the page should be deleted, yes? - Nick15 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, discussion at Articles for deletion is just for whether deletion is appropriate, not renaming or restructuring articles. The fact that the 'speedy keep' !votes focus on your actions and not the article is because that's what speedy keep means: if there were a genuine debate about the article's need to be deleted, a speedy keep would be inappropriate. Given that you now know this, would you object to this AfD being closed and discussion proceeding on the talk page as you say? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can bare with me for a second, if I have arguments against individual Speedy Keep posts (such as the Google hits fallacy I posted above), can these kinds of discussions be brought into the actual Talk page, or do they have to be argued here and now on this page? Also, just because it gets voted "Speedy Keep" NOW, does it mean that the article is absolved of any further deletion requests, even if they follow Wikipedia guidelines for AfD (as this AfD did not)? - Nick15 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely and in good faith believe that the article needs to be deleted, then the AfD could remain for you to argue that case - but given the overwhelming level of opposition an admin may well close it as a WP:SNOW keep anyway. If however your concerns with the article are about its content and name and not its title and you don't believe an AfD is necessary - which I took your comments on the talk page to indicate - then we should close this and you can reply to individual points which were raised here on the article's talk. Closing this AfD as speedy keep will not prejudice any future deletion dominations if you, or anyone else, decides it actually does need deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept that this AfD has failed due to the fact that I didn't jump through the right hoops, and as long as I can argue the individual points from here on the articles talk page and be allowed to--assuming good faith--bring this article back to AfD later, then I'm content with this AfD being closed. Thank you for your patience with me as I learn a little bit more about the Wikipedian system. - Nick15 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to nominator Article for deletion means Articles actually nominated for deletion, or merge/transwiki/userfy that would amount to deletion, not moving. A page move should be discussed on the talk page of the article, not AfD here. That's why people !vote Speedy Keep. If you think the article meets certain criteria for deletion, feel free nominate it for deletion again, although it's better to wait a reasonable time before nominating an article for deletion again. But, in this particular case, I think even if you nominate it again it would be closed as snowball keep. And yes, you can respond to others' comment here, before this AfD discussion is closed. Hope this solve your problem. :) Blodance (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I don't plan on bringing this up until I get a bit more under my belt. I realized I jumped the gun by bringing this article to AfD, but I did learn a lot, thanks to everyone here. I certainly have learned a lot. I still think this article needs to be deleted, but next time I'll come prepared. Though hopefully by then the questions about the article will be addressed by then and it won't require deletion. Thanks again, y'all! - Nick15 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (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.