Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takashi Nagasako


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Takashi Nagasako

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

DELETE. Tons of credits. I can see that. One huge problem however, there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Somewhat of a WP:BLP problem but definitely a strong case for non-notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER with several significant roles in multiple notable anime series, particularly Lewis in Blood+ and Pedro (Noooooooooooooo!) in Excel Saga. Ans since the article is almost entirely a WP:LOW, there really is no WP:BLP issues. The article simply needs more depth and detail about the voice actor. --Farix (Talk) 12:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is NO EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE, NON-TRIVIAL THIRD PARTY COVERAGE about this person, the article must be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENTERTAINER doesn't require non-trivial third-party coverage. Meeting one of the criteria is enough to presume notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep his list of roles proved by is significant enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. The issue is more that we lack reliable information to make the article more than a litany of series and roles he dubbed. --KrebMarkt 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Verification of quite a few of the lead roles is easy to find, some of them present in the articles on the shows -- this can be done quickly enough I wonder how much WP:BEFORE work was actually done by the nominator. Handily passes WP:ENTERTAINER = keep. If that verification is not present in the article is the gripe, that's a cleanup issue; AfDs are about the potential, not actual. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Potential?  What potential.  Wikipedia is not IMDb, or MobyGames, or any other site of that ilk.  This article has been a single sentence stub since 2004.  If there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage of this WP:BLP then we ought not to carry the article at all.  Full stop.  JBsupreme (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware we had a WP:DEADLINE. Out of curiosity, why are you so on fire about this particular article, as opposed to one of the thousand or so other voice actor articles...?  68.80.199.76 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why are you throwing strawman arguments around while not logged in? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid excuse for anything.  JBsupreme (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the people !voting keep have used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an arguement, so why did you bring it up? Being stub is not grounds for deletion.  and the article has a lot more than a single sentence. Edward321 (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And, in fact, it is policy that being a stub, even a permastub, is not grounds for deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Fg2 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And articles are NOT about potential. See WP:CRYSTAL Niteshift36 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with the potential for an article to be good. It has to do with events that haven't happened yet.  In this case, the events have happened (the person has already performed in the roles listed), so WP:CRYSTAL isn't at all relevant. Calathan (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. The fact that the article is not properly sourced is an issue for improvement of the article at this point, IMHO, not a reason for deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. The nominator seems to be arguing that everything in the encyclopedia must pass WP:N, but that isn't the case.  The whole point of having additional notability guidelines like WP:ENTERTAINER is to identify cases where things are notable but don't pass WP:N.  Also, a quick Google search indicates that there is an interview of him included as an extra on DVD 4 of Blood+ (region 2, not the U.S. DVD volume 4), which could perhaps be used to add more information to the article. Calathan (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone. I've never seen such utter rage over a voice actor article of all things. Chill, dude. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, while he may be notable, per WP:BLP, there is not a single reliable reference shown which can really support the article. Simply being a list of his works doesn't negate this requirement (and being purely a list of what he's been in is nothing but a copy of IMDB or ANN, and Wikipedia is not a mirror). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You mean asserting WP:V ? I dropped that ref in the article discussion page Takashi Nagasako seiyu official CV, Artsvision. It's a primary source but i guess that enough to pass WP:V unless people say that the CV is a big piece of BS. --KrebMarkt 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His CV alone doesn't establish notability and by itself is not enough for BLP to me. Anyone can post their CV online and be verifiable, but that doesn't make it notable. With that we can say what he's been in and what else? Not even his full birthdate is in that source. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't misread me. I was just trying to solve WP:V issue as IMBD & ANN encyclopedia part are hardly reliable for verifiability. For WP:N, i agree that it's another story altogether because you can not prove notability with only primary source. --KrebMarkt 19:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The massive number of notable series this voice actor has worked on, clearly makes them notable. As to the mirror comment above, I'd like to point out that no matter where you find a complete list of someone's work, it'll be identical to others who have a complete list.  The first part is listed by year, the next parts listed in alphabetical order.  And some of his roles have been for major characters in the series he has been in.  It isn't just minor appearances. He was the voice of Donkey Kong in some of those games in that highly successful franchise!   D r e a m Focus  15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy gabs adds  19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 with comment above an account created just today the 9th June for deprod + Adf-Keep action :( --KrebMarkt 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Two more potential sources. Here is another database listing some of his voice roles  (you have to search for his name in the database since I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the list of his roles).  That database is considered a reliable source according to WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources.  There is also apparently a half-page article on him in a magazine about voice actors . Calathan (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Most these voice actor articles will forever be stuck at stub class, but they usually meet the minimum WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (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.