895:
themselves and some genres. I do not believe this person is notable because no one has actually produced a single reliable source. I strongly disagree with claims of "sources must exist because she must be notable because she played in some roles." If no one can actually produce the sources, then we can not presume they exist. Claiming "I don't have time" or "I can't get them" is no different "until proven otherwise, they don't exist". If
Knowledge operated by that mantra, then all topics are automatically notable because anyone can claim "well yeah, all those sources are only available offline and no I can't tell you what they are but because they played in roles X and Y they obviously had tons of coverage." Personally I'm rather disappointed in my fellow project members for the unfounded attacks against you in this AfD. Whether they agree or not, the personal attacks are ridiculous and unnecessary. It is not the first time I've disagreed with other project members on such an AfD, though, with other members feeling "its notable because of X even if we can't prove it there are sources" and the AfD ended up closing as keep with a lot of nasty remarks thrown at anyone who dared to ask for the sources to actually be shown. It seems to me a lot of people here keep forgetting that the onus is on the one making the claim that there are sources to actually prove it, rather than attack the nominator for daring to ask for them. --
919:
am not demanding anybody do anything in that way, ordering people to expand every single stub to FA or something, rather I am asking kindly for evidence, even a glimmer of widespread coverage in publications I would traditionally look towards, even on a topic such as this. So far, Collectonian is right. Nobody has shown me wide coverage in any publication expect a database entry on a Tv website. I understand that according to Nihon and Farix there is a massive amount of coverage of these people in magazines and newspapers in Japan, but there are
Japanese editors on here who should surely, especially being fans of anime, should be able to find something, if these seiyus are as notable as is being claimed. Note that when I say "I demand reliable sources to indicate notability, I'd like to know if there has ever been any extensive coverage of this seiyu in a book, magazine or newspaper in Japan which is not apparent online. If so, that is good enough for me provided it can be used to write a decent article. But my concerns here about sourcing are as valid as they would be on any other topic in determining notability. OK, yes the seiyu might have a few notable voice roles to their credit, but surely notability is also determined by extensive coverage in publications? By extensive coverage I mean more than the database entries currently being used to reference their filmographies.
1325:
half-serious editor. Before N, there were few to no articles about "every Tom, Dick and Harry", or the color of my friend's mother's toenails, or the quilt she made last
Christmas. The worse WP had before N-azis came into power were mass articles on fictional characters and tons of lists of trivial fictional stuff, along with maybe some unnotable indie bands, video games and etc. Those articles existed because the broader community willed it to be so, whereas the article on James Simmons, the school bully of the 1992 Juneau middle school class, was deemed stupid and was deleted. No policy was needed in that situation. Notability as a concept isn't really subjective in the minds of most people, and when disputes did come up the community resolved it. A perfect system. But I guess somewhere along the way we needed a proper written definition, and this is what we ended up with: A conflict-causing and arbitrary rule trying to define a thought that varies from person to person. In concept, that's not too bad of an idea, every site needs rules after all, but in execution it's really just an exclusionist tool. -
876:
sites than actual blogs though, although ideally it would be nice for there to be an
Encyclopedia of Manga with a lot of information about series and seiyu for which could be used to write articles about these people. May I ask why you believe this seiyu is non notable? I thought Nihon and Farix were corretc ins saying that this person would be widely covered in reliable publications offline in Japan? If I am as wrong about my assumptions of lack of notability of this person and was grossly out of order in nominating this as Nihon and Farix have led me to believe, asserting they strongly pass entertainer and anime project requirements why does another member, a clearly knowledgable one such as yourself seem to contradict what was said by the other members of the project? I've been told I am a terrible person for thinking this biography non notable as it is obviously notable now, apparently. But if you happen to agree with me, and would seem to be far more knowledegable about this subject, perhaps I was not as wrong as Farix claims I am?
776:
A site which proclaims, "Animax is the channel of choice for youth trendsetters, image-conscious, tech-savvy young adults and individuals seeking a unique entertainment experience". Not exactly
Harvard essay material is it? I've seen the use of books and newspapers in a lot of the GA articles on this topic we have which even to me look far more respectable and what I consider solid sources. Ideally I would like the see similar sources used to write articles such as this. I now understand the reason why if not, but only after I had nominated these articles. Yet people are angrily yelling at me for something I nominated at the same time as the other one without even giving me a chance to discuss what we should do about this.
1114:, such a coverage is what decides notability for me. That other people think they are worthy of writing about and publishing about. So far nobody has inidicated an offline source which has written about this seiyu other than the standard database on TV websites. So far nobody has cited a single source online or offline which actually writes about this seiyu, other than an contentless databases entries on TV sites with nothing but a birthdate and filmography. If these people are not considered worthy of writing articles about in favour of writing about the actual anime series instead, why I ask do we need to have biographies about them if nobody else does?
702:"Atrocious, extremely offensive, annoying." Get a grip. What a big kid. I've nominated two articles for deletion based on a lack of sources and notability and did have a point about them not seeming to assert notability or having many reliable sources to expand it. You and Nippon Joe are behaving like school children in your exaggerated response. Exactly what I had expected actually. You didn't even stop to consider discussing it rationally and that I might actually have withdrawn the nomination amicably. Grow up.
682:
problems with this particular article, that of sourcing and notability, so that it will not be deleted. But it's both annoying and offensive when you insist that the article be expanded to a !stub or else it must be deleted. I also find your repeated assertions that official websites as are somehow "fansites" down right atrocious as it not only shows a lack of knowable, but a complete unwillingness to actually evaluate the content. —
775:
do not look the most credible. It may well be a very respectable mainstream source to you guys and acceptable (because it is one of the largest anine networks in the world apparently) but it doesn't look the most professional as a source to write articles that's all I'm saying even if it may well be.
1364:
no sources about the subject have been found, only trivial mentions in the context of her work. Knowledge works from sources if the sources don't exist to create a biography article then we shouldn't have one. If the only coverage about her is listing her voice-over work that can be covered in the
918:
Thanks for your response
Collectonian. I did mean anime rather than manga, But you know what I mean. A good eneyclopedic cocverage in a big book or something. But I believe I have a point about reliable sources and even here there seems to be split over what people's ideas of reliable sources are. I
894:
Um...an encyclopedia of manga would generally not have anything to do with voice actors as manga (in
English sources anyway) refers purely to the printed works, while anime refers to the animated stuff. :-) There are several anime encyclopedias, but they do not focus on voice actors, just the series
591:
Regardless of when they were made, his comments were over the top. If he wants sources from specific places, he should be hunting for them himself, not demanding that other people provide them. If he can't do that himself, then he shouldn't be placing such demands on others. It's fine if he requests
1208:
This is stupid. Their body of work is what makes this person notable, any "extensive coverage" would just be trivial biographical information no one cares about and redundant listings of the things they were in. This article is here because there's literally no reason for it not to be. Oh yeah, and
1187:
which do not have extensive coverage of this individual anyway is enough to make this nomination valid. No website on the
Internet writes about this person, why should we? The article needs more than verification it needs sources to write a solid article and claim notability of this individual with
796:
I agree with your nom (obviously), however I do not understand why you would consider an official Asian television network website an unreliable or uncredible source. It would be no different from sourcing something to foodnetwork.com or hgtv.com or even cartoonnetwork.com. Their choice of wording
621:
Extremely rude? Why? This was nominated shortly before the other one. Perhaps you too the word "demand" too harshly as tone is often difficult to understand on the web. I meant require. I would like to see written sources. Note that this was made before you told me about the lack of info online for
592:
that people try to find such sources, if possible, but demanding it (or requiring it, as he mentions below) is not assuming good faith on the part of the other editors and is placing unreasonable burdens on people who may not have the resources he's demanding. I know I'd love to have every issue of
875:
Mmm, an official Asian television network is a credible source, I guess though unless you look into the site past the self promotion stuff to attract kids and teenagers then it is easy to initially dismiss it as a poor source to write an encyclopedia article. It is much better to reference to such
681:
Well, when you've put in as much work and effort into
Wikipeida as I have, it becomes very annoying and often times offensive when a random editor comes into an area they clearly know nothing about and claims that I and other editors are not doing enough. I and other editors have fixed the emitted
1249:
reasonably have articles on, like Miriam the Bunny Killer from Oregon etc but everytime to community has to make an overall decision of notability (the community voted to delete that article despite extensive coverage actually as the majority believed writing about a mentally ill woman who killed
1240:
think it would be feasible to write about the local tramp or any one of the 6 billion people on the planet and that any walking human, local fisherman, blacksmiths, how about the local mechanic in the garage, postman, milkman who delivers milk to my mummy every day then that is the only way your
1235:
most important decision an encyclopedia has to make. Without any rough guide to notability would allow us to write any Tom Dick or Harry or the local tramp or taxi driver. You might turn around and say, well I wouldn't go that far as to have a encyclopedia article about the local tramp, meaning
639:
It's the method you go about "asking" for these sources. You shouldn't be demanding anything here as you have no more authority than anyone else. It's fine if you request that people try to find some printed sources for material in the article, but you shouldn't be demanding it or requiring it.
466:
Always remember to check the
Japanese name. And the only thing you need to check, is how many notable series they were in. Voice actors are like actors, but instead of standing around talking to each other in front of a camera, they just talk in a recording studio. It isn't just reading, but
663:
Well, when you've put as much work and effort into wikipedia as I have, its a comparitively small order... No, its not my place to "order" people to do things, I can request people to do things, rather than "ordering". But again with this article there is not an abundance of sources in the
1324:
Well now that that's settled, let's address this laughable notion of "no notability is equal to the apocalypse" so this sort of thing doesn't happen again. N is a big part of Knowledge, it's a essentially a written unwritten rule, which tries to put down on paper a shared thought of every
1230:
need trivial biographical information. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia nobody cares about. Frankly anybody who declares that "This user rejects using notability as an inclusion criterion on Knowledge" I cannot take even remotely seriously. The decision of notability is
1342:
I see what you mean. I don't like the way certain rules are bent and how many double standards there are across the site either. And yes at times the "Nazi rules"do get very irritating and often hypocritical. And I'm glad to hear you are reasonable about what is included in an
1241:
claims would be true. Somewhere somebody has to draw the line and say this is notable, that is not. If you think that it would be "stupid" to have an article on the local milkman, then you are making your own decision and subconciously saying, "he's not notable". So notability
1075:
Does anyone sincerely doubt the person is in the series mentioned? They'd be listed in the credits at the end. That's all the proof you really need. And if they played a significant role in multiple notable series, that makes them notable. You don't need anything else.
251:
Non notable biography. Does not assert importance of the subject and lacks solid sources which indicate real significance of this person. I only found the anime network profile and a bunch of mirror sites. Evne in Japanese I fail to see why it is necessary to have a
1016:
Full disclosure, i'm unsatisfied of the situation. Even if we manage miraculously to source those bio, what is the purpose, aim, perspective of such articles in Knowledge? Are long litany of verified roles a starting point or an evolutionarily dead-end/point of
220:
1382:. I'm sympathetic to the argument that contemporary periodicals would cover her sufficiently to pass WP:N, but as it stands, it's a list of 2-bit roles, none apparently of any significance per WP:ENTERTAINER - the only anime I recognize immediately is
985:
From my English understanding, you would excuse me i'm French, you were giving the perception that those sources were not reliable to assert roles. In such case those same sources would not be reliable to assert something like first broacast time.
1105:
The roles are verifiable, that is now not disputed as it was initially. But what actually makes them notable is where there is a divide in opinion here, For me notability has to be determined by extensive coverage in publications such as
495:
Oh I agree, many voice actors are notable. But I demand solid sources like Kinema junpō: Kinejun: Motion picture times, Issues 1178-1180 - Page 62 then rather than what regularly appears to be referencing to fan
160:
733:
You were the one that kept making demands after the initial problems were fixed. You were the one who stated that other editors weren't "doing enough." And you were the one who practicably declared the editors
214:
841:
Excuse me? Your remarks makes absolutely no sense at all and you are really not helping anything by making random remarks. You haven't even edited in ages...and that was after your photo was rejected in the
1020:
I'm willing to spend craps load time to source such articles but i want a loud and clear answer are those contributions worthless & pointless? If so i will gladly resign from that responsibility. --
279:
1304:
and you should open an RfC to have it demoted as a guideline. But so long at it is a guideline, I and other editors will continue to use it to determine if a biography should be included. —
1226:
Huh LOL "any "extensive coverage" would just be trivial biographical information no one cares about and redundant listings of the things they were in". My thoughts exactly. So why do
464:
333:
1245:
always a determining factor. However, people are different, they have different perceptions of what is appropriate for wikipedia and what is not, there are millions of articles we
954:
Whatever it's keep or delete, this case should be weighted on the facts asserted by those sources and not on person feelings, feuds, long time antagonisms or any form of biases. --
521:
due to playing multiple leading roles in multiple notable series, and the current refs in the article clearly show this. The sites being used for references are not fan sites. ···
1143:
makes her putatively notable. Even if we never find additional biographical information about her, she would still be notable for those achievements. If we ever find the right
1250:
rabbits and stored them in the fridge was not appropriate). From a personal viewpoint this article may very well be notable to some people, but not to others but in order to
115:
1280:
have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. Having significant coverage by reliable third-party sources is not the only guideline we have for inclusion.
154:
235:
202:
738:
as incompetent to do the stubbiness of over 600 VA articles. Those are the actions of a child who doesn't want to admit that they were wrong in the first place. —
579:
1009:
It was obvious that meeting the GNG requirement would be unattainable based on involved editors capabilities and material resources. Yet it can't be denied that
305:
517:
doesn't keep their articles online, so unless someone happens to have the magazine it's going to be impossible to find things like that. She clearly meets
196:
1147:'s stash of moldering voice actor magazines from the times when she was most active, then we'll be on the way to getting past a stub of an article. —
513:
You know, you're becoming extremely rude, tossing your demands around in an area where you have no clue about any of the topics. Keep in mind that
192:
797:
in promoting themselves doesn't lessen what they are. Their site is geared towards their viewers, just like any other television network site. --
939:@Collectonian Be accurate would you. Out of the 9 citations currently on the article 7 are certainly reliable, 1 is unsure and 1 is clear COI.
242:
120:
1107:
398:
Voice actors should be treated like regular actors. Playing a significant role in that many notable series, makes you clearly notable.
976:
908:
859:
810:
386:
208:
1292:. So long as a subject meets any one of the criteria, the subject is presumed notable and may have an article. This subject passes
88:
83:
92:
17:
1315:
749:
693:
648:
604:
563:
529:
1387:
1164:
Why are people making such a big deal about this? This person is well sourced and has multi roles and such. Either there is
1236:
however much you declare the otherwise, you still have your own notability requirements and biases as anybody else. If you
175:
664:
traditional sense and it didn't assert its importance. Its not exactly Hirohito or 1995 Kobe earthquake or anything is it?
75:
142:
373:, there is nothing that can be said in the article beyond her name that could not potentially be considered harmful --
1394:
443:
256:
of this person. DOes providing a voice in some film or cartoon automatically mean we must write about their life? .
1410:
1330:
1214:
36:
1409:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1173:
434:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1258:
we require an abundance of sources to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia article, so sources are important.
136:
1345:
1260:
1190:
1116:
970:
921:
902:
878:
853:
804:
778:
704:
666:
624:
498:
448:
380:
369:; the lack of any coverage, much less significant, coverage of this person means she is not notable and per
258:
963:
I am being accurate. Confirmation of roles is not significant coverage of the person. And back at you. --
578:
Joe, show some moderation please. Himalayan Explorer's comment here is anterior to the debate you had for
132:
1374:
1355:
1334:
1319:
1270:
1218:
1200:
1177:
1168:
here or something is going on for someone to be making huge paragraphs on why this should be deleted. -
1156:
1152:
1140:
1126:
1099:
1070:
1047:
1040:
1024:
1010:
990:
980:
958:
931:
912:
888:
863:
836:
814:
788:
753:
728:
714:
697:
676:
658:
634:
614:
586:
573:
539:
518:
508:
490:
458:
438:
421:
390:
366:
347:
343:
320:
294:
268:
57:
964:
896:
847:
798:
374:
1370:
1326:
1210:
53:
1296:
criteria #1 for having several significant roles in multiple notable televisions series. If passing
182:
1169:
832:
724:
430:
228:
168:
1386:
where she's a 2-episode temporary character; nor do I see anything impressive on the English web:
596:
at my fingertips, but I don't, and I doubt I ever will. (I think I may own two issues, total). ···
1311:
745:
689:
654:
610:
569:
535:
316:
290:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1148:
1077:
948:
468:
399:
339:
1391:
1366:
735:
148:
49:
48:. There are valid (and invalid) arguments made for both keeping and deleting the article.
1388:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Runa+Akiyama%22
1297:
1111:
1044:
1021:
987:
955:
828:
720:
583:
463:
If you search for the name in Japanese, you get some results from Google book search.
1306:
1301:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1165:
1060:
740:
684:
641:
597:
556:
522:
370:
362:
1255:
1188:
more than just a list. Still nobody has found me extensive coverage of this person.
312:
286:
71:
63:
109:
358:
843:
1277:
582:
AfD. See the time stamps. So it's not the previous debate all over again. --
1209:
it passes Knowledge's silly little inclusion rules for entertainers too. -
1184:
944:
429:
Multi voice acting roles since 1979, I believe this should be kept. -
940:
771:
To the average reader who is not a manga crazed fan, sources such as
1144:
1136:
1043:
and Are primary source acceptable to assert entertainer roles. --
1403:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1059:- fails WP:N. Notability not yet established by proper sources.
1039:
In this AfD the question is two fold: Does this person can pass
772:
446:. That is usually a good indicator of widespread notability.
1300:
is required for all biographies, then there is no need for
280:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
105:
101:
97:
1284:
depending on the subject area. In this case, there is
227:
167:
334:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
1254:articles (as opposed to an imdb type list) without
1135:: Has acted in a leading role in multiple notable
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1413:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1110:which are cited for an obviously notable actor
241:
181:
8:
1276:Your "rant" is completely off-base and your
1013:can reached just using such primary sources.
846:article by myself and others. Uh huh.... --
719:You have our support. He operates this way.
328:
306:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
300:
274:
467:putting emotions into the tone of voice.
332:: This debate has been included in the
304:: This debate has been included in the
278:: This debate has been included in the
622:these topics, which I now understand.
7:
1183:Filmography citations to sites like
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1375:18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
1365:credits of the productions.
1356:23:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
1335:22:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
1320:14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
1271:12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
1219:07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
640:That's my only beef here. ···
58:01:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
1397:21:49 12 February 2010 (GMT)
1201:17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1178:17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1157:23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
1127:23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
1100:23:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
1071:21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
1048:23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
1025:08:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
991:08:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
981:23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
959:23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
932:23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
913:23:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
889:21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
864:23:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
837:21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
815:21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
789:20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
754:20:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
729:20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
715:20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
698:20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
677:16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
659:15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
635:14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
615:15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
587:08:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
574:06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
540:06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
509:16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
491:15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
459:15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
439:00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
422:04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
391:23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
348:23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
321:22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
295:22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
269:18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
1430:
555:per my comment above. ···
1406:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1139:productions, which per
444:No hits in google books
951:is reliable. etc ...
1288:and specifically
657:
613:
572:
538:
337:
323:
309:
297:
283:
1421:
1408:
1354:
1352:
1282:There are others
1269:
1267:
1199:
1197:
1125:
1123:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1067:
967:
949:Nippon Animation
930:
928:
899:
887:
885:
850:
801:
787:
785:
713:
711:
675:
673:
655:Talk to Nihonjoe
651:
647:
644:
633:
631:
611:Talk to Nihonjoe
607:
603:
600:
570:Talk to Nihonjoe
566:
562:
559:
536:Talk to Nihonjoe
532:
528:
525:
507:
505:
487:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
457:
455:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
377:
310:
284:
267:
265:
246:
245:
231:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1411:deletion review
1404:
1346:
1344:
1327:Norse Am Legend
1261:
1259:
1211:Norse Am Legend
1191:
1189:
1117:
1115:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1061:
965:
922:
920:
897:
879:
877:
848:
799:
779:
777:
705:
703:
667:
665:
649:
642:
625:
623:
605:
598:
564:
557:
530:
523:
499:
497:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
449:
447:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
375:
259:
257:
188:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1427:
1425:
1416:
1415:
1399:
1398:
1377:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1181:
1180:
1170:Knowledgekid87
1159:
1141:WP:ENTERTAINER
1112:Mifune Toshiro
1103:
1102:
1073:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1041:WP:ENTERTAINER
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1018:
1014:
1011:WP:ENTERTAINER
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
952:
916:
915:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
827:You are bias.
820:
819:
818:
817:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
717:
619:
618:
617:
580:Chieko Higuchi
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
519:WP:ENTERTAINER
431:Knowledgekid87
424:
393:
367:WP:ENTERTAINER
351:
350:
325:
324:
298:
249:
248:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1426:
1414:
1412:
1407:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1351:
1350:
1349:‡ Himalayan ‡
1343:encyclopedia.
1336:
1332:
1328:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1266:
1265:
1264:‡ Himalayan ‡
1257:
1253:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1234:
1229:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1196:
1195:
1194:‡ Himalayan ‡
1186:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1120:‡ Himalayan ‡
1113:
1109:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1074:
1072:
1068:
1066:
1065:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
992:
989:
984:
983:
982:
978:
975:
972:
968:
962:
961:
960:
957:
953:
950:
947:is reliable.
946:
943:is reliable.
942:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
929:
927:
926:
925:‡ Himalayan ‡
914:
910:
907:
904:
900:
893:
892:
891:
890:
886:
884:
883:
882:‡ Himalayan ‡
865:
861:
858:
855:
851:
845:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
816:
812:
809:
806:
802:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
786:
784:
783:
782:‡ Himalayan ‡
774:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
737:
732:
731:
730:
726:
722:
718:
716:
712:
710:
709:
708:‡ Himalayan ‡
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
686:
680:
679:
678:
674:
672:
671:
670:‡ Himalayan ‡
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
645:
638:
637:
636:
632:
630:
629:
628:‡ Himalayan ‡
620:
616:
612:
608:
601:
595:
590:
589:
588:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
560:
554:
551:
541:
537:
533:
526:
520:
516:
512:
511:
510:
506:
504:
503:
502:‡ Himalayan ‡
494:
493:
492:
489:
488:
465:
462:
461:
460:
456:
454:
453:
452:‡ Himalayan ‡
445:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
423:
420:
419:
397:
394:
392:
388:
385:
382:
378:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
349:
345:
341:
335:
331:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
307:
303:
299:
296:
292:
288:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
266:
264:
263:
262:‡ Himalayan ‡
255:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
190:Find sources:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1405:
1402:
1383:
1379:
1361:
1348:
1347:
1341:
1305:
1281:
1263:
1262:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1237:
1232:
1227:
1225:
1193:
1192:
1182:
1161:
1132:
1119:
1118:
1104:
1078:
1063:
1062:
1056:
973:
966:Collectonian
924:
923:
917:
905:
898:Collectonian
881:
880:
874:
856:
849:Collectonian
807:
800:Collectonian
781:
780:
770:
739:
707:
706:
683:
669:
668:
627:
626:
594:Kinema Junpo
593:
552:
515:Kinema Junpo
514:
501:
500:
469:
451:
450:
426:
400:
395:
383:
376:Collectonian
354:
329:
301:
275:
261:
260:
253:
250:
238:
232:
224:
217:
211:
205:
199:
189:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
72:Runa Akiyama
64:Runa Akiyama
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1384:Case Closed
1380:Weak delete
1149:Quasirandom
1017:stagnation.
553:Strong Keep
357:fails both
340:Dandy Sephy
215:free images
155:free images
1395:(contribs)
1367:Eluchil404
844:Anime Expo
50:Beeblebrox
1278:straw men
1045:KrebMarkt
1022:KrebMarkt
988:KrebMarkt
956:KrebMarkt
829:Ucla90024
721:Ucla90024
584:KrebMarkt
313:• Gene93k
287:• Gene93k
254:biography
977:contribs
945:TV Tokyo
909:contribs
860:contribs
811:contribs
736:WP:ANIME
387:contribs
116:View log
1298:WP:NOTE
1162:Comment
221:WP refs
209:scholar
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
1362:Delete
1302:WP:BIO
1294:WP:ENT
1290:WP:ENT
1286:WP:BIO
1166:WP:COI
1064:Shahid
1057:Delete
941:Animax
496:sites.
371:WP:BLP
363:WP:BIO
355:Delete
193:Google
133:Google
93:delete
1392:Gwern
1307:Farix
1256:WP:OR
1252:write
1247:could
1145:otaku
1137:anime
1108:these
1095:Focus
741:Farix
685:Farix
486:Focus
417:Focus
236:JSTOR
197:books
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1371:talk
1331:talk
1215:talk
1185:this
1174:talk
1153:talk
1133:Keep
971:talk
903:talk
854:talk
833:talk
805:talk
773:this
725:talk
435:talk
427:Keep
396:Keep
381:talk
361:and
359:WP:N
344:talk
330:Note
317:talk
302:Note
291:talk
276:Note
229:FENS
203:news
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
1233:the
1069:•
643:日本穣
599:日本穣
558:日本穣
524:日本穣
338:--
311:--
285:--
243:TWL
187:or
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
1390:--
1373:)
1333:)
1318:)
1314:|
1243:is
1238:do
1228:we
1217:)
1176:)
1155:)
986:--
979:)
911:)
862:)
835:)
813:)
752:)
748:|
727:)
696:)
692:|
653:·
650:投稿
646:·
609:·
606:投稿
602:·
568:·
565:投稿
561:·
534:·
531:投稿
527:·
437:)
389:)
346:)
336:.
319:)
308:.
293:)
282:.
223:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
1369:(
1329:(
1316:c
1312:t
1310:(
1213:(
1172:(
1151:(
1092:m
1089:a
1086:e
1083:r
1080:D
974:·
969:(
906:·
901:(
857:·
852:(
831:(
808:·
803:(
750:c
746:t
744:(
723:(
694:c
690:t
688:(
483:m
480:a
477:e
474:r
471:D
433:(
414:m
411:a
408:e
405:r
402:D
384:·
379:(
365:/
342:(
315:(
289:(
247:)
239:·
233:·
225:·
218:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
195:(
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.