Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariko Okubo

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Okubo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Chinese page has the same issue that English page does, it fails to cite support for the claim. As you know, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for an article. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe the statement says something about reliable sources - Wikipedia is not an independent resource. At any rate, thanks for your hard work, please add the reference to the article. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, you're keeping this AfD going because you want the reference in the article despite WP:AFD stating "f you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."? --Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2015 (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.