Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaki Saitō


 * 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.

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tamaki Saitō

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

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. A prod last year was removed. Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Google search reveals some notable references. It may or may not satisfy WP:BIO, but the article just doesn't contain anything concrete to be retained.--Whizsurfer (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: We generally nominate for deletion if we decide that there is no potential for the article to expand. In this case there is potential; after all Saito is considered to be the leading hikkikomori expert in Japan. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and expand, there is a substantial article on the ja wiki, I have asked for it to be translated at Translation/Tamaki Saitō Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The BBC reference appears to satisfy notability requirements, and more references should be able to be added. --DAJF (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per above. Just needs a little work. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Fg2 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Referenced by a reliable source as being the leading expert in his field. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. It obviously doesn't fail notability for bios.  Was the article even looked at by the nominator?  I'm baffled.  --C S (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the article's version when I nominated it and there is a tag there for 15 months. I don't think this is an obvious keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did check, and that's how I saw it listed Saito as "Japan's leading hikkikomori psychiatrist". Did you see that?  --C S (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a text about hikkikomori referring to the name of Tamaki Saito in a single line calling him leading psychiatrist and information I couldn't cross-reference from somewhere else. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't understand what you're trying to say, but that is indeed an obvious keep, even if you don't know that. I would advise learning more about notability guidelines before more AFD nominations.  --C S (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think article establishes notability? This is not what many editors who probably checked the article since June 2007 till now. The text on the notability text says: This article has to be deleted, merged or redirected or the tag has to be removed. A characterization in a BBC article without any more details is enough for you? Remember that we are dealing with a biography of a living person so we have to be very careful with verifiability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the BBC article more than enough established notability, and the article does enough to explain it. Plus we have the New York Times article that says so as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe with the NYT article added we are OK but I would like to keep debating about the "obvious keep". A single reference doesn't establish notability. I'll give you an example: BBC reported that Corfu wants autonomy. I am from Corfu and I'll tell you something: This is a BIG LIE. The Greek government tried to contact BBC for that. The guy interview in this article was complete unknown to Corfu until that and mainly of Greece's reactions. Conclusion: A single reference, not even about the person discussed, without being double-checked from secondary sources doesn't establish notability. Maybe BBC wrote that out guy here is "a leading doctor" because the person claimed that to the reporter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that the press is, while reliable, not infallible. I know Joey Skaggs has a habit of getting the press that way. Usually I treat a reference as okay until I find evidence to the contrary (I.E. a correction report) - Anyway, I concede that I should rely on multiple references; it is good that we have them in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons outlined above WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Recognised as the leading expert in his field. (As an aside, there is no way that BLP applies to this article - nothing that could be construed in any way as negative has been written here). Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn after new references were added, it seems this person establishes notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 15 October 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.