Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawayo Takata

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawayo Takata

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

Unrefernced, tagged as original research since 2010 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adding Japanese {{Find sources AFD}} for full consideration. A few Reiki publications turns up but few is a full biography suitable to base the article on, only this "Hawayo+Takata"+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HXsoVYLeBcLRmwXNy4CIDw&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced biography with dubious notability claims. --DAJF (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding her referenced all over in English, German, Portuguese, and Japanese discussions of reiki, and she seems to be universally credited with bringing the practice to the West. For instance, this paragraph and the following two pages give more than passing reference to her and her impact. She is described in the same book as "Hayashi's most famous student...[who] would take the role of standard-bearer after [his death]." This book was written entirely about her. It's only 112 pages long per Google Books, but that's pretty significant to have 112 pages written about a person in one book. This book references the biography above. Seems to me that just a little bit of research can come up with enough material to support notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The books you mention are published by unknown authors via unknown publishers "Archedigm Publications", "Inner Traditions / Bear & Co" and "Frog Books". I can publish the sames all by myself on my laptop. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps unknown to you, but I'm sure you don't know all the publishers in the world, and whether or not you have the ability to publish a book on your laptop is irrelevant. Please stay focused and stop throwing out straw men. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't have to know all publishers in the world. I can google them and decide that they are unknown, i.e., of unknown reliability. My ability to publish book on a laptop is relevant in this context as an example. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Google is not the arbiter of reliability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hawayo Takata to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That an entire book has been written about the subject establishes that she is clearly notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me highlight the words reliable sources for you. You seem to bear the 19th century unconditional reverence to things called "books". Well, they are not what they used to be. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please remain WP:CIVIL and refrain from attacking people who disagree with you. We already know you disagree and want the article deleted. Attacking others here will do nothing to serve your purposes. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am attacking the argument, not the person, namely, I am questioning the premise that a book is to be automatically declared a "reliable source" without discussing the merits of authors and publishers. Yes you already know I disagree, but I also want you to know that your arguments are not as solid as you may think. By the way, I am actually helping you by giving an extra time to provide a more solid argument before AfD closure. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't need to provide a more solid argument. The one I gave is far more solid than your "I don't think they are known or reliable" argument. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:23, 18 April 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.