Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinohara Yoshiko


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Shinohara Yoshiko

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR, profiles and interview and passing mentions. No indication of significance for a WP:BLP.  scope_creep Talk  18:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Sexuality and gender,  and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep What an absurd nomination. Shinohara is Japan's first woman billionaire with coverage in CNBC, FT , Forbes , Japan Times , Independent , and plenty more. No evidence of a WP:BEFORE search let alone WP:NOENG. DCsansei (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 is an interview, Ref 2 is a raw search url that points to two articles in the FT. The first one is a passing mention, the 2nd one is a passing mention. Ref 3 is another interview style article "she told Forbes Asia in 2015.". Can't read Ref 4. Ref 5 is more substantial. But a single reference isn't sufficient for WP:BLP. The references in the article are atrocious and typical of an agency managed article.  scope_creep Talk  19:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to clean up the article, feel free -- it's an old article that I started making edits to and admittedly needs work. However, claiming it's not notable is absurd. Did you actually do a search for sources? Note that ref 1 is not an interview but a profile CNBC that cites two previous interviews she did which constitutes significant coverage. Yes, the FT link is to multiple articles about her which constitute significant coverage (admittedly, the first two are passing on their own). Ref 3 is again an article about her (in 2017) that references a prior interview she gave in 2015, it is also significant coverage. Ref 4 is a full article about her and the fact that you can't read it does not mean it's not sigcov. And we already agree that ref 5 constitutes significant coverage.
 * I'm confused if you did a search for sources yourself and, if so, included Japanese sources as per WP:BEFORE B7 "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek)"?  DCsansei (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you post three genuine WP:SECONDARY sources I will withdraw it. Not profiles, not interviews, not PR, not passing mention, not any AI generated articles. That is all any person needs for the Afd to close is to supply WP:THREE refs. Sometime it is very hard to do.    scope_creep Talk  06:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing listed above is an AI article; not sure what that comment was supposed to apply to. Substantial independent coverage from reliable publications is included. Coverage in Japanese also exists (e.g. this program from TV Tokyo, this book from Heibonsha, this book from Bungeishunjū, etc.). Dekimasu よ! 10:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, lazy nom, obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. --Cavarrone 22:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I will do a review of the references in the next couple of days. I do intend to get those two books described. One of them is certainly trade book published by interested parties that is not necessarily independent. It not that don't trust you as an admin but to say there is substanial coverage when the article doesn't have single valid reference, is problematic.  That was lazy drive-by Afd !vote, dude.    scope_creep Talk  22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You already did a review of the sources here, which was arguably inaccurate (describing legitimate articles as "interviews" and significant coverage as passing mentions, dismissing sources just because you can't read them and so on) and was effectively rebutted by DCsansei's analysis, which you just choose to ignore in your counter-reply. So my friendly suggestion is to just drop the stick, "dude". --Cavarrone  23:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. It was the article I was talking about, but you haven't even looked at the article have you. Interviews don't prove notability, nor does agency generated PR profiles, or passing mentions, all typical of the type of coverage you see on the type of individual here that use marketing and PR agencies to manage their own PR brand. I see nothing so far of value. I have two references to check. I've no confidence that this article is any different from the hundreds of other articles with the exact same type of  trash sources, that I've seen at Afd, in the last 10 years. Anyway,  why would say, "drop the stick" when this is the same type of Afd as any other one. When you have said "Lazy nom" when that article has got zero valid sources for a WP:BLP, that make me think that something is going here that I can't see. Why would say that?. I'm curious.     scope_creep Talk  00:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggested you to "drop the stick" because DCsansei provided some good sources, you claimed they were not good and DCsansei successfully rebutted your claims. Then Dekimasu even provided further sources. This AfD should had been withdrawn a long time ago and do not require further bludgeoning, as there is no chance the article will be deleted, and the AfD itself could had avoided by a proper WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 11:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand which book is supposed to have been a "trade book published by interested sources" (I think that comment was directed at me). The Heibonsha book is a standard mass-market book from a highly reputable publisher, written by a Jiji Press economics reporter. The Bungeishunju book is a standard mass-market book from a reputable publisher, written by a well-known freelance nonfiction writer who used to be an editor at Shukan Shinchō. Expert sources and involved sources are certainly different; the standard that's being used here would seem to render most books published in Japan unreliable. I could have tried to find more book sources, but I thought this was sufficient. Dekimasu よ! 04:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that. I suspect the Gbook references are good, but I like to be absolutely sure, if possible. I know your are admin who makes it their business to supply high quality sources for difficult subjects. On these types of Afd, there is often an enormous amount of interested parties who are often paid by folk who make up the moneyed classes like the subject. In previous Afds, on these types of subjects, which I've done they often appear in the Afd and will argue black is white, to preserve the article. Billionaires who by the their definition are very private individuals, but often need to have a brand to help them make money, can pay any amount to preserve their Wikipedia brand. That has been shown in the past, multiple times. When I did the translations of the information on the two book references, one looked like a trade journal. In America publishing, you often see trade books that are amalgamations of company information. They are all surface and no depth. That kind of book may not be found in Japanese culture and it may be my lack of experience that I don't know that. But I want to be sure if possible.  scope_creep Talk  09:27, 24 February 2024 (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.