Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamayo Akiyama


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Tamayo Akiyama

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable. Obermallen (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Anime and manga,  and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to pass WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Although the pass isn't as clear as it first seems as some of her works may have their own articles, but two are poor articles with no citations. Two are however decent. I've not checked the Japanese sources, but assuming good faith. CT55555 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to CLAMP . Keep - In searches online and in the WP library, I found one book review (Publishers Weekly, 2006), a mention at p. 98 of her as 'the only ex-CLAMP member to have made an impact on the Western market' in The Rough Guide to Manga (2009), and a 2011 mention in an Anime News Network post, i.e. "Some of the early members, notably Leeza Sei and Tamayo Akiyama, left the group for careers as solo manga-ka, but none have been a fraction as successful as the four women who stuck together." The article includes wikilinks to Mouryou Kiden and Hyper Rune, which have no sources, Secret Chaser, which includes a review (IGN, 2012) identifying her as a former CLAMP member, what appears to be a crowd-sourced review also referencing her former work with CLAMP, a French-language capsule review for Vol. 2 noting her CLAMP background, and an Anime News Network announcement. The other wikilinked publication in the article is Zyword, which does not include the PW review noted above, but in its article has the Amazon page and the book itself as references, and an Anime News Network review of Vol. 1 which describes her as a CLAMP alumni. At this time, there appears to be support for a redirect to CLAMP, but insufficient support for a standalone article per WP:NAUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC/WP:GNG . Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC) - comment and !vote updated, per below Beccaynr (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the Mania review is crowdsourced and unreliable; as per WP:ANIME/RS, Mania is considered to be a reliable source for reviews outside of the Maniacs section, which that article was not published in, thus it is a reliable source. When combined with the IGN review, that is two reviews, thus making it meet WP:NBOOK. Zyword also meets NBOOK (at least you don't seem to be denying it does). The other series with articles are old, so they may have coverage in older English or French sources (which I will look through and see what, if anything, I can find. EDIT: Found this review in French and this review in German for Mouryou Kiden, which both seem fairly substantial, thus making it meet NBOOK). But even without those two, I think that between two notable series and some independent articles about her other series, she at least comes close to meeting WP:NAUTHOR 3. Link20XX (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the WP:ANIME/RS link - I was trying to assess the site based on its appearance as a crowd-sourced fan site - the WP:ANIME link says, "Editors must be particularly careful the reviews are from AnimeOnDVD/Mania staffers and NOT from the user-submitted "Maniacs" section. When searching for reviews, those that have a URL format of http://www.mania.com/*title*_*somenumbers*.html and that follow the original AoD review format are written by staff reviewers and are considered reliable and usable for articles. "Maniac" reviews written by users which are not RS can be detected by the lack of structured format and a URL in the form of http://www.mania.com/*username*/review/*title*_*somenumbers*.html", and this url does not have a username in the title. I will adjust my comment and !vote. Beccaynr (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment above; having three notable series is enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR 3 in my opinion. While Hyper Rune has an article and was licensed in English and French, I couldn't find any good coverage online and considering how fancrufty it is, I don't think it's worth saving. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2022 (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.