Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachi Matsumoto

{{Delrevxfd|date=2012 December 15}}

: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 delete. A reasonable argument has been presented that the subject ought to be notable due to her roles, but the consensus have a reasonable argument when they point out that the sourcing is too weak to create a decent and verifiable article at this point, especially considering that such requirements are critical in a BLP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Sachi Matsumoto]]=

:{{la|Sachi Matsumoto}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sachi_Matsumoto Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sachi Matsumoto}})

:({{Find sources|松本 さち }})

Prod declined for invalid reason. Only source is a DVD review of questionable notability. No sources found in English or Japanese. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete at the time I added the passing reference the nominator correctly characterizes, I was unable to locate reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actress through in-depth coverage, and in looking now I don't see that anything has changed. Language issues could be in play of course, but this article has had time to grow sources in the five years it's been sitting around, but of course, language issues could be in play, and additional sources are, as always, welcomed. --joe deckertalk to me 21:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • : Aso, I suppose this is a possible hoax, given that Marina Inoue, not this actress, is listed in our explication of the role Inugami Kotaro that we credit Sachi for here, but a more likely explanation is that Matsumoto voiced a second-language dub on the work in question. if that's the case, though, the article's a bit misleading, I'd argue. --joe deckertalk to me 21:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ::: Struck the last bit, I guess it's only for the video game, not the actual film role. Fair enough, it's noted there now. --joe deckertalk to me 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. One passing mention on a DVD review site does not constitute sufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I dont see any evidence of notability, just minor character work done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:ENTERTAINER #1 is met. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has had the role of a major character in a notable series and the film for that series, Penguin no Mondai. [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=9412] So those are notable roles. Yozakura_Quartet seems to indicate a significant role this voice actor played, in that series and in the film for it. Dream Focus 04:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 05:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete, at least for now. I hate to say this, but while she has had significant roles in multiple notable media, there isn't a lot of reliable sources to affirm that. A search using both her English and Japanese names failed to find enough reliable sources, which is especially important since the article is a BLP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • :Their official website confirms their birth date, location of birth, their occupation, and roles they have done. That's all the information in the article, so it being a BLP isn't a problem. A main character that appears in most episodes, as opposed to some minor bit found here and there, is a significant role. Dream Focus 11:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Well it appears she was only in a major role in about two or three notable works. I'm not easily convinced unless the works themselves are especially notable and have a lot of coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

::::Notable by Wikipedia standards, since they have articles about them. Also, these series were notable enough for a film to be made about them. Dream Focus 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Notable by Wikipedia standards, but not especially notable. The works she did aren't so particularly notable that it would be unthinkable not to have an article on her. Besides, notability isn't inherited anyway. I would have considered a keep, even a weak one, if I found enough Japanese sources, but even the Japanese search was mostly inconclusive. Even our friend Hitoshi Doi doesn't have a page on her. As much as I love anime and Japanese media, not all voice actresses should have articles, especially if reliable sources cannot be found. Even if she passes criterion #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER, the question remains – is there enough sources for us to write a good article, or to establish notability? No. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::WP:I don't like it is not a valid reason to delete. If the person meets the subject specific guidelines for voice actors, then the article must be kept. Dream Focus 14:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::It's not that I don't like it. It's just that I have a very high standard for criteria #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. For me to say that she passes that criterion, she needs to have a noteworthy role in several (at least 6) notable works or a major role in particularly significant or notable works (like Studio Ghibli films or extremely popular anime), a role that would itself be a claim to notability. As it stands now, I don't think she is notable by the lack of reliable coverage. But there is still a way how i can say she is notable. Does her Japanese Wikipedia article have sources which can be considered reliable here? If so, it can be added to the article, and hopefully the said sources will be enough to establish notability and for me to reconsider my !vote. To me, the only thing that really matters are reliable sources, especially on BLPs. As much as I want to keep her article, WP:RS fails her. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Why would she need at least 6? Regular actors, and basically just everything there is, only requires two. Dream Focus 04:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::I have high standards, remember? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::Well I've checked her Japanese page, and there aren't any references whatsoever. So much for that. If the article is kept, sources must be found to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • :::::::::Well Wikipedia standards fortunately aren't as high as your personal ones are, and the Wikipedia standards are all we have to satisfy. The Japanese Wikipedia has never required sources, they accepting "common sense" in cases like this. Dream Focus 16:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:: It is not "third party" but surely her agency's site is a reliable source with regards to her career? Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

::: Her agency's site an be a source for certain information like her birthdate, birthplace, blood type, certain biographical information etc., but third party sources are required for establishing notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep as noticed above, she passes WP:ENTERTAINER#1 per multiple significant roles in notable productions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has enough notable roles to warrant inclusion. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not enough coverage per WP:GNG in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article. "Their official website ... That's all the information in the article" and "her agency's site is a reliable source with regards to her career." Neither are independent of the subject Sachi Matsumoto. The article is nothing more than a List of Sachi Matsumoto performances. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

::WP:NOTABILITY is determined by an article meeting the GNG or a Subject Specific Guideline such as WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 16:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. No sources here meeting IRS. The article as is represents itself as a BLP, but in fact it's a filmography for a LP. Even the filmography fails IRS. IMHO, as a BLP, the threshold for sourcing must be higher. No reliable secondary sources back the (entirely subjective) assertion the subject meets ENTERTAINER #1. We have no reason even to believe the birthdate is correct, based on sourcing. 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

::Why would the birthdate be in question? You can run the referenced Japanese site through Google translator and confirm this. [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kenyu-office.com%2Fprofile%2Fmatsumotosachi.htm] Dream Focus 01:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:::It may in fact be correct. She may in fact be 163 cm tall, but we can't accept the agency site as an independent reliable secondary on a BLP. IMDB certainly doesn't qualify. Inclusion requires notability and verifiability. We can only presume notability in certain cases, but even in those cases we need some sourcing to stand on. Nothing like that here. It's sad that in Japanese Wikipedia they don't require sourcing, but here, by policy, we do. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2012 (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.