Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsunori Iketani: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 48: Line 48:
*:::::While that's true generally to prove significant coverage under GNG, that's not the case under an SNG. Unless you're contesting that he meets the [[WP:NMOTORSPORT]] criteria, there's a ''presumption'' of notability unless "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found".
*:::::While that's true generally to prove significant coverage under GNG, that's not the case under an SNG. Unless you're contesting that he meets the [[WP:NMOTORSPORT]] criteria, there's a ''presumption'' of notability unless "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found".
*:::::By definition, a presumption means that the burden has been flipped to those who wish to override the presumption. [[User:DCsansei|DCsansei]] ([[User talk:DCsansei|talk]]) 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::By definition, a presumption means that the burden has been flipped to those who wish to override the presumption. [[User:DCsansei|DCsansei]] ([[User talk:DCsansei|talk]]) 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::From [[Presumption|our own article]]:
*::::::<blockquote>In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact". There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. A rebuttable presumption will either shift the burden of production (requiring the disadvantaged party to produce some evidence to the contrary) or the burden of proof (requiring the disadvantaged party to show the presumption is wrong); in short, a fact finder can reject a rebuttable presumption based on other evidence. Conversely, a conclusive/irrebuttable presumption cannot be challenged by contradictory facts or evidence. Sometimes, a presumption must be triggered by a predicate fact—that is, the fact must be found before the presumption applies.</blockquote>
*::::::[[User:DCsansei|DCsansei]] ([[User talk:DCsansei|talk]]) 12:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:46, 10 May 2024

Katsunori Iketani

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Katsunori Iketani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. current sources in article are databases. search only finds other databases and this, which spells his name 2 different ways...? ltbdl (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak because article creator or editors could've done more such as add results rather than leave it a single sentence stub article. Japanese Wikipedia hints that he may was a driver of a national level but like this, does not provide context too. Digging further, looking at his result database on JAF (source), he may as well pass criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT as he had some sucesses in top level national racing. A selection of highlights in his career as below.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the Japanese article has the same sources as the English one – the article can't be kept on race results alone, there needs to be some independent, substantive coverage. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of having subject-specific guidelines is that verifying that a subject meets that criteria means that their article is kept. In this case, I agree with SpacedFarmer that he meets criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He also meets criteria 2 since he completed the 1988 season of the World Sportscar Championship (by which point the series was a professional racing series). Therefore, I also !vote keep on this article. DCsansei (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is absolutely not the purpose of SNGs (WP:SNG). SNGs are indicators of when a subject is likely to be notable. Articles still need to meet the GNG: if there are no usable sources, there cannot be an article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the guideline you cite: "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article". Unless you've done a review of Japanese motorsports print coverage from the 80s and 90s, I don't think we've established that "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found" to overrule the SNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't prove a negative. We're at AfD, it's on the keep !voters to present sources. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a different definition of presumed. I define it as meaning that we assume something to be true, meaning that if a subject verifiably passes an SNG, we assume that they merit an article. Per WP:SNG: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic" and "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found."
Generally, in a AfD, the onus would be on keep !voters. Given the presumption of notability if a subject passes an SNG, that onus is reversed when that becomes the case per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I can't find any sources whatsoever. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, but as I cannot be reasonably expected to provide evidence of an absence, we will have to presume that is a fact for now. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, unless you're stating you've comprehensively reviewed print sources from the 80s/90s and were unable to find significant coverage, we'll have to presume that the subject is notable per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I have. What a tragedy, Iketani's article deleted because nobody could find a source... how could we allow this to happen to somebody so unquestionably notable? 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@5225C: Indeed I have – So you speak Japanese and have done in-depth searches in 1980s Japanese racing magazine archives and Japanese newspaper archives? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't just speak it, I'm fluent in it, and the check wasn't just in-depth, it was comprehensive. You could prove me wrong, of course, by presenting examples of these sources you speak of. You won't, obviously, because no such sources exist. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@5225C: Could you provide a list of some of the 1980s Japan newspapers / magazines you comprehensively searched, and how you found them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above that he meets criteria 2 and 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until non-database sources with significant coverage can be presented. While I am sympathetic to the potential of there being offline, likely Japanese-language sources existing, those of us on enwiki who do not speak Japanese should not be burdened with having to find those sources. Until evidence of those sources existing can be found, what exists is purely database in nature. Nothing exists with which to write encyclopedic content in English or Japanese. The subject does not, with the sources available, meet the WP:GNG. The SNG section also says "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG ... may still be deleted ..., especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found...." Wikipedia is not a database. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTDATABASE does not cover entries for sportspeople. "those of us on enwiki who do not speak Japanese should not be burdened with having to find those sources." I don't speak Japanese but I don't have much issues with it either, having held subscriptions to some car magazines in the past. Wikipedians write annual pages about sumo wrestling despite most of these sources being in Japanese too. "Until evidence of those sources existing can be found, what exists is purely database in nature. Nothing exists with which to write encyclopedic content in English or Japanese." There are offline books and magazines. So, you are saying we need sources in English language for it to pass notability in English Wikipedia, am I right? SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that's insane. the not policy covers everything. ltbdl (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This policy is intended for lists, not articles about people. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    where on earth did you get that notion? ltbdl (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I seen it being used on nominations for lists, this is the first I seen being used against a bio of a person. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak Japanese but I don't have much issues with it either, having held subscriptions to some car magazines in the past.
    huh????
    There are offline books and magazines. So, you are saying we need sources in English language for it to pass notability in English Wikipedia, am I right?
    that is obviously not what he said. ltbdl (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    may be deleted – not absolutely required no matter what. Common sense is a policy, which is at a higher level and should hold more weight than guidelines such as GNG. If someone is presumed notable and no one has done any searches whatsoever in the areas where sources are highly likely to be found (waiting on 5225C for confirmation), then the article should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – None of these hypothetical sources exist. It's blatantly obvious that this fails the GNG. SNG are an indication that sources probably exist, they don't make an article immune to challenges on the basis of notability – and, in this case, the corresponding sources have not and will not materialise. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide an answer to @BeanieFan11's question above listing some of the 1980s offline/Japanese newspapers and magazines you comprehensively reviewed since this AfD started? I think that would be helpful given that you want to overrule Iketani's presumption of notability from meeting multiple SNG criteria? Thanks! DCsansei (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    burden is a policy. thanks! ltbdl (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content policy, yes, which isn't relevant since I'm not arguing for anything to be added to an article. I'm simply repeating the question of what 1980s Japan newspapers / magazines were comprehensively searched to overturn the presumption created under the relevant SNG. DCsansei (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you missed my point. the burden is on the person wanting to keep the article to find sources. asking people to search for 1980s japanese newspapers to maybe possibly bring them over to your side is preposterous. ltbdl (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While that's true generally to prove significant coverage under GNG, that's not the case under an SNG. Unless you're contesting that he meets the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria, there's a presumption of notability unless "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found".
    By definition, a presumption means that the burden has been flipped to those who wish to override the presumption. DCsansei (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From our own article:

    In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact". There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. A rebuttable presumption will either shift the burden of production (requiring the disadvantaged party to produce some evidence to the contrary) or the burden of proof (requiring the disadvantaged party to show the presumption is wrong); in short, a fact finder can reject a rebuttable presumption based on other evidence. Conversely, a conclusive/irrebuttable presumption cannot be challenged by contradictory facts or evidence. Sometimes, a presumption must be triggered by a predicate fact—that is, the fact must be found before the presumption applies.

    DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katsunori_Iketani&oldid=1223184609"