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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Kazuo Hiramatsu

Kazuo Hiramatsu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

BLP with no secondary sources. Opal|zukor^{( discuss)} 14:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^{( discuss)} 14:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep: Strong keep: Sourcing only to primary sources, if those sources are reliable, is not a reason to delete a page that has presumed notability under WP:NACADEMIC. It is also not an accurate description of this page, since both sources currently cited are secondary, and the news article looks independent. As the president of a large university, a member of national advisory councils, and the president of a major professional society, he passes NACADEMIC criterion #6 and surely passes several others. And a WP:BEFORE, including looking at the Japanese page, shows that secondary sources exist even if they aren't yet included. - Astrophobe ( talk) 20:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  He is also not alive, so his page is not a BLP. - Astrophobe ( talk) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  Actually, it would be more accurate for me to !vote Speedy Keep per WP:CSK: the nomination rationale is that secondary sources are needed for a BLP, but the page is not a BLP, and all of its sources are secondary. - Astrophobe ( talk) 21:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:PROF#C6, possibly speedy as the nominator appears not to have even considered WP:PROF notability and secondary sources are not required for that kind of notability. Additionally the nominator appears not to have done WP:BEFORE as even the most cursory and obvious thing one might try (checking the Japanese-language version) finds more sources. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but references certainly need to be improved. Deb ( talk) 09:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as the president of a university, passes WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 10 December 2020 (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.