Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shingo Kobayashi

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. This is turning into a policy debate: Is it sufficient to satisfy an SNG without satisfying GNG? Not my call here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shingo Kobayashi

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found having searched in both English and Japanese. As request for assistance at WikiProject Anime and Manga has also come up blank with a suggestion of non-notability. Plad2 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Plad2 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do you sincerely doubt the entry at http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=15596 listing this person's works? They have played a significant role in creating many notable pieces of work. You could search for any of the official websites of these things, and find the credits for them if you had any real doubts. Dream Focus 10:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, Keep. --Smári McCarthy (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the key animator, the person who creates all of the reference frames for all of the other animators to follow, in 6 notable television series and 3 films, this easily passes WP:ARTIST. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the role of key animator with that of the animation director. A large number of key animators will work on a single anime (for instance, Anime News Network's encyclopedia lists over 100 key animators for Honey and Clover). Each individual key animator does not have a lot of creative input into the creation of the anime. The decisions as to what goes into each frame would mainly be made by other people like the director, animation director, and character designer. Calathan (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient in-depth third-party coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need third party coverage, if it passes other guidelines. WP:ARTIST Dream Focus 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a name listed in credits does not sufficiently establish notability. J04n(talk page) 15:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen WP:ARTIST? Do you not believe the requirements have been met? Dream Focus 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All subsections of WP:BIO must first pass WP:BASIC, the subsections are additional criteria. J04n(talk page) 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. One does not need to pass BASIC first, as meeting WP:GNG is only one of the ways that notability might be established. All WP:BASIC states is that if GNG is met, then notability is presumed. The WP:BIO#Additional criteria, such as WP:ARTIST are offered as additional means by which we might determine notability in the absence of meeting the GNG. They are not reliant on the GNG being met first, else there would be no need for such additional criteria to even exist. But even without use of animenewsnetwork encyclopedia, we might still rely on screen credits of the films themselves to verify his particpation. And searches can be extended to include the films themselves, so that his participation in those projects might be further confirmed. And in combating our unfortunate systemic bias, input from Japanese Wikipedians with access to non-English sources would be helpful as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To DreamFocus' initial comment: unfortunately, the guidelines at WikiProject Anime and Manga re information from AnimeNews Network state that ...because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. For Anime and Manga artists, I always search first for sources via their very useful anime and manga custom google search but came up blank this time. I also consulted the folks over at The Anime and Manga Project, as noted in the nomination. --Plad2 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I have also searched using the Japanese spelling of the subject's name (plus Google translate) and come up blank. If we were able to verify the facts in the article with at least one reliable source, that would be a first step. Establishing notability per CREATIVE/ARTIST/AUTHOR is another. I have seen nothing yet from a reliable source which meets or verifies the "significant" or "multiple independent reviews" requirements of CREATIVE.--Plad2 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of his films have ever been reviewed? Wow. And here I thought the Japanese were nuts for anime. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that they have not been reviewed. Just that I haven't found reviews in any RS yet and there is a limit to how long it is reasonable to spend searching (especially when one doesn't read Japapese).--Plad2 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue was notified of this debate. J04n(talk page) 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO, people that meet the additional criteria (such as WP:ARTIST) does not guarantee that a subject should be included. There are no sources which show that Kobayashi is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, nor are there sources that recognize him as being the originator of a significant new concept or that he played created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He only appears in the credits, just like a cameraman, a secondary actor, a sound director or any other person that appears in the credits. He is not referenced as being an instrumental part in the works where he is credited. I don't believe that Kobayahshi meets WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:N either. I also think that there are no reliable sources to presume that Kobayashi meets the criteria of WP:BIO so I don't see a good reason to keep the article. Jfgslo (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see multiple works here, not just a few with key animation on multiple works. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those that believe that WP:SNG's trump WP:GNG, I completely disagree and to point to just one fairly recent ~~RfC~~ the community does also. J04n(talk page) 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to a sports talk page archive. Where's the RFC? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
correct linkJ04n(talk page) 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response With respects, this has been hashed out many times over many years in many different forums. Neither one "trumps" the other, as they are set to be mutually supportive not mutually exclusionary. And, as mutable and often changing, guidelines are to be used with common sense. The GNG is not the sole criteria to be consisdered, else there would absolutely no need for SNGs to even exist. They were set in place to address those instances when the GNG is failed but something may be determined nonetheless notable. What IS mandated is that an assertion made by an SNG meet policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to disagree on this and I respect the work you do too much to quarrel, our opinions have been expressed. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're all here to build a better Wikipedia. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 19 January 2011 (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.