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. Melsaran (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshio Kojima[edit]

Yoshio Kojima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Japanese comedian, article has been previously speedied. Current CSD refused on the grounds that the author asserts fame. ghits=268 using ("Yoshio Kojima" comedian -blog -youtube) as search terms. Article contains link to LA Times article that isn't viewable as it's a subscription page, so basically no other assertions to notability other than a YouTube video of him being interview wearing swimming trunks. -- WebHamster 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't read Kanji and this is the English WP I searched in English as per the search terms in the nomination. Additionally be wary of the fact that the name "Yoshio Kojima" is shared by other people including a CEO of a calculating machine manufacturer. ---- WebHamster 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thank you, point taken and accepted. I'm going to make a request for wiki project Japan for help. KTo288 13:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note a request for information on this article has been placed on WikiProject Japan here. KTo288 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of the calculator CEO's name being listed with hiragana for his first name like that are slim to none (his Japanese name is 小島義雄). The hiragana is often used by entertainers in Japan to set their names apart, for stylistic issues, etc. Also, per WP:CSB, AFD is not the solution for articles on foreign language topics with few English sources. Neier 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the article creator to demonstrate notability via the usual methods and not to rely on other editors having to learn a foreign language. This is especially important when an article is sourced from a foreign language version WP. Based on the article itself and English language searches this AFD was appropriate. This is an English language WP and there are relatively few Kanji readers, the responsibility is on the article creator (and interested editors) to make sure that English language readers/editors are aware of the possibility of few English language sources and to provide appropriate sources and possibly translations. As it stands the article still doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO regardless of cultural and linguistic differences. ---- WebHamster 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, we get it. The onus is on the article creator, blah blah blah. Nobody's blaming you for not knowing Japanese. I think we've shown, though, that the Yoshio Kojima in question is notable enough for this article not to be deleted. -Amake 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet strangely enough nothing has magically appeared in the article itself. So it still doesn't demonstrate notability. Now if one of the "keep" supporters would take the time to edit the article for their inclusion it would make more sense than the attempted sarcasm by some in this discussion. Wouldn't you agree? ---- WebHamster 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing needs to change in the article purely with regards to AfD. We've demonstrated its notability, therefore the decision on AfD is clearly Keep. If you feel the article lacks sources, feel free to tag it with ((unreferenced)). -Amake 14:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, WP:OR has a specific meaning, according to the policy page, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Something this article is full of. Everything in the article is unpublished facts, arguements , concepts , statements, or theories. Notice there is not one source within that article; thus it is original research. There isn't much content either, so I doubt the subject is all that notable, except for his few fans on youtube. Nothing that proves notability according to wikipedia's "standards." SefringleTalk 02:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of included sources != original research. It simply means that no sources were included. Just because the original author(s) of the article didn't follow policy by including sources for the information in the article doesn't mean that the information included in the article is "unpublished facts, arguments , concepts , statements, or theories". It simply means that the original author(s) didn't include sources for their additions. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:00, 19 September 2007 (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.
More