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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Nagano

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD - no evidence of notability, Japanese-language article is entirely unreferenced. At most, this could perhaps be merged into List of unusual deaths, but does not deserve a standalone article. Giant Snowman 10:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - what? Calling this non-notable is ethnocentric. Well know in these parts [1] and has sources besides. Not sure why this article was tagged? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my nom, the Japanese-language article is entirely unsourced, and this one is barely. There is no evidence this individual meets WP:GNG. PS your accusations of ethnocentrism are entirely unfounded and violate civility guidelines - please strike. Giant Snowman 16:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it uncivil is an attempt to make it so. I said it more as a statement of fact. By saying that no one knows this person, you were showing your own bias. So you are being ethnocentric. Fact. Not meant as a personal attack on your integrity as an individual of course. This guy was killed in front of the public and it is notable. It was in the news. Don't be dogmatic, please. I know that people usually stick to their guns on Wikipedia though, so I don't imagine you being open minded about this. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a statement of fact at all, it's you getting uppity at the fact somebody has questioned the notability of an article you created. You also need to verify the notability using reliable sources. An unusual death does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 07:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uppity? As in "you should stay down there" that you say to an inferior? None the less, I forgot that I made this article (2007 is a long way down the hole) so I suppose I shouldn't argue for it too strongly. None the less, if a time magazine source and a news video source is not enough, what is enough? I am sorry if I sound abrasive, I am just frustrated by those that seek to delete instead of create. Nesnad (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added another printed source to the article, multi-page article in a book printed in 1996 discussing Kazuo Nagano and his crimes. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. I think that this subject is notable enough, with at a simple minimum of two sources that appeared in print, and most likely many others. I ask you to seek knowledge in order to add and create. A thirst for deleting valid content will serve none of us well. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chairman of a non-notable company. Only gained momentary media attention for a single event. --DAJF (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The Japanese article not citing sources is not a reason for deletion from English Wikipedia, as Japanese Wikipedia apparently has different standards for sourcing and referencing. (One example would be [ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/日本文学 Japanese literature], which cites only two sources, one for another name for Japanese literature and the other for a dispute over the usage of that name.) A quick Googling revealed that the Heuston Chronicle covered this story when it happened [2], as did the Japan Times, which has the article displayed in a retrospective on its website [3]. I say weak keep in spite of all the reliable sources because it is essentially one old news story, but the existence of all this material seems to indicate that it was a [ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/豊田商事事件 national scandal] in Japan (sometime before I was born, so I don't remember). elvenscout742 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: do these sources constitute in-depth coverage of Kazuo Nagano to justify a biographical article on Wikipedia? I don't think so. --DAJF (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's kind of like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but there are many other biographical articles whose notability is not questioned, even though they discuss people who are only really notable for one thing that happened to them - in many cases, sadly, how they died. (The majority of articles in [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Foreign_hostages_in_Iraq Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq] come to mind.) The fact is that extensive media coverage of a particular incident probably merits at least one article on it. I said "weak" keep because I would not be opposed to creating an article about the larger Toyota Shōji Affair (or some other appropriate, preferably attestible, transation), and merging this content into it. Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias both currently have such articles, it seems. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Weak case for notability. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. Cavarrone (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per reliable sources. and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I need to add this for the record: the argument for deletion seems to have been based solely on the lack of sources currently cited in the article in both English and Japanese. This person and the scandal he was at the heart of, and what happened to him, have received extensive media coverage, and a relative lack of recent sources in English is not a valid case for deletion (see WP:NTEMP). Whether Wikipedia policy justifies the article as it is currently titled, rather than as a section in a theoretical article on the Toyota Shōji scandal is still up in the air, but I say keep because of the precedent set in other independent articles devoted to people who are only notable for having been tragically killed in a particular fashion and those incidents having been covered in the media. The difference is that this person was killed as revenge for having swindled thousands of people out of a huge amount of money, and was already an infamous robber known throughout Japan before he was killed. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently learned how to use Google Books. "Kazuo Nagano" in English brings up 222 hits, and "永野一男" in Japanese brings up over 1,000. Most appear to be general works on unsolved crimes, unusual assassinations, media malpractice, etc., but at least one of those was the records of transactions of the Diet of Japan! elvenscout742 (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.