User talk:Tduk/Kappa Tanabe

Assist

I know this guy is pretty famous in Japan, but I can't read Japanese, so if anyone can help flesh this out, that'd be cool! Tduk (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• As I've stated, I'm having trouble finding things about this guy - but I know he's pretty well known. He's touring with Estelle right now, that's how I heard about him, but I can't find a 'reliable source' for that. Regardless the article 'asserts importance' so is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Tduk (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Its a Biography of a Living person with out a single reliable source nor does searching google provide any reliable that can be added. Lack of Reliable sources mean there is no assertion of notability at allThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Speedy deletion is not the correct route for articles like you describe. That is what AfD is for. Nominating an article like you describe for speedy deletion - which explicitly states it only needs to assert importance - is a waste of everyone's time. Tduk (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No creating unreferenced BLP and one where no RS can be found then insisting that they go through a Week long AFD is waste of everyones time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Did you search for Japanese sources, using his name in Japanese? How long did you spend looking? I was hoping someone with multilingual skills could help out before you started nominating more of my articles. Tduk (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
          • The burden is on you to have Reliable sources before creating a BLP, you have none thus until you are able to provide proper sourcing it must be deleted. No one here would be against you recreating if you recreated it with reliable sourcing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I still am sure that in cases like this, where there is no contentious information, that speedy deletion does not apply, and you are once again misusing policy here. Tduk (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Just because it's not contentious does not change the fact that its a unreferenced BLP The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                • We are both repeating ourselves so I suppose an admin will have to decide based on policy. Please don't remove any references before an admin gets to it. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• You cited A7 as your speedy deletion criterion, which states that An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.. The points you are arguing don't seem to apply in any way to what A7 states. This article passes A7. Tduk (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is none what so ever assertion of any notability in the articleThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Whether or not there is does not even matter, the policy clearly states it is a lower standard than notability. Tduk (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• note: The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• The article does assert importance. Tduk (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)