Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinichi Kitaoka


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Shinichi Kitaoka

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

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn in the light of the level of sources available in Japanese, which I do not speak or understand. Note that all other delete "voters" will have to withdraw for this to be closed as speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not good enough as it stands, but could be notable. Punkmorten (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet notability, unreferenced.  Lady   Galaxy  19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A search for his name in Japanese gets about 27,000 hits. Also the United Nations web site and his U. Tokyo web site should be enough to satisfy the minimal claims of the article, that he is associated with both of those two institutions, satisfying the nominator's objections to keeping the article. What this article really needs, though, is a Japanese speaker to dig through all the potential Japanese-language sources from that search and add some more detail to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly. UN ambassador and Todai professor, wrote many books see google translation of ja wiki page, here's a Foreign Policy review of one. 117 gnews hits, this on appointment as ambassador. John Z (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the various sources found by David Eppstein and John Z clearly indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Fg2 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs expansion but clearly notable. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep ambassadors of any country to the UN are unquestionably notable. Assuming hat the nom was unaware of the practice here, a quick G or GN search would have found the references. It's time we stopped even accepting such afd nominations, unless they at least assert a search that failed to find refs. This is a particularly obvious example of wasting the time of the community; considering that the nom is an admin, and is therefore assumed to know the rules here, I would judge it as disruptive..  If others agree with me and wants to start further action, I will support it. DGG (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just because the subject is notable doesn't mean we should keep this article. On a sidenote, Speedy Keep is not an option when a delete vote has been voiced, isn't that so? __meco (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To say that a subject with notability is not necessarily something that should be kept is unintelligble. The guidelines ( WP:STUB and WP:IMPERFECT ) are probably what should be consulted here.
 * Also no such absolute exits here. Wikipedia is not a beuaracracy. Sorry if u or the nominator want a special speedy keep procedural absolute, I suggest looking elsewhere. Perhaps Conservapedia?
 * Comment: As long as an article doesn't run afoul of WP:NOT then any subject that meets WP:NOTE should have articles. That is the stated goal of Wikipedia. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A major international figure who is mentioned in books, journals, and the general media. This article should never have been nominated. The nom deserves a  WP:TROUT. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 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.