Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takashi Sanada

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. If I am permitted to give such a suggestion, the sources given should probably be used in the article, right now it's a stub. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Sanada

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

Non-remarkable person. No medals in the paralympics, fails WikiProject Tennis guidelines, fails WP:NSPORT guidelines. Per sources given not notable Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why is winning the Japan open not notable? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By consensus it does not automatically make one notable. Winning one of the Grand Slam tournaments makes you notable. Or medaling in the paralympics. It's also possible to bypass Olympic or Tennis Project guidelines if the person passes General Notability Guidelines (GNG). It would need to be shown that the press has written articles specifically about this player. Not mentions, not scores, not sentences... but actual articles on Takashi Sanada. If you can find a couple newspapers that have write-ups about him it can be sourced in the article and the new info can be added. It's not there now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, its surprising he hasn't had indepth coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find some, by all means bring it here to our attention. You can also put a copy of this in your sandbox and if he does start getting a bunch of press, you can easily recreate it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Keep in view of the sources supplied by Michitaro, I could not translate all of them but at least three or four that were google translated showed sig coverage directly about him- much better than my own search. If the article is kept will add the best of the refs to it. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found quite a number of significant articles on him in Japanese: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. A number are from major news sources such as Asahi, Shueisha, Yahoo, and Livedoor and definitely count as RS. Others seem to be feature articles or interviews from more specialty sites. All seem to be independent and none are blogs. I would say the weight of the evidence is that he passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Japanese so I can't tell. If you feel they are good enough as sources you need to take the most important ones and incorporate them into the article. As the article stands he is not notable for anything tennis related so he'd need those sources to show he passes GNG. Otherwise he'll keep getting nominated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly at some time they should be added. They need not be added now, however, since per WP:NEXIST is it only necessary at this stage to show that the sources exist. Notability is not to be judged based on the current state of the article. Since this AfD has been del-sorted in Japan discussions, others there can verify if they think these Japanese sources are sufficient to keep the article. Michitaro (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can't read Japanese, I'll take Michitaro's word in good faith that those sources are reliable, and they certainly sum up to significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:48, 26 September 2016 (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.