Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroyuki Kaidō
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Nominator withdraws; no remaining delete votes. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiroyuki Kaidō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Multiyear unreferenced and uncategorized BLP, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the claims in this article or establish notability for this Gensaku-sha. Additional sources welcomed as always. Withdrawn. See below. joe deckertalk to me 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Did the artwork for an original notable manga series that was also made into a television series they worked on. They gets news coverage in one reliable source found so far, they notable enough to have their newest manga project talked about. Dream Focus 21:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw as nom, thanks for pointing me at the alternate spelling, I'd tried substituting -oh for -o/bar but not -ou. That information led me to [1] and at least one other source on ANN news that that indicates this artist's role as an animation director. While I follow the general consensus that ANN encyclopedia isn't a RS, the news articles and reviews are generally considered to be so, and that plus the book is verifiable enough for me. --joe deckertalk to me 21:19, 10 July 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.