Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaya Hashi (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Two of the keep !votes (and about half of the total verbiage) were all about procedural issues, i.e. the speed at which this was re-nominated after the first AfD. They may have a point, but in the end, that's immaterial to the core question of whether the article meets our requirements.

Discounting all that, the remaining arguments to keep fail to impress me as much as the arguments to delete. I don't see any support, for example, in WP:NACTOR for the idea that a number of minor roles is the same as a major role. It looks like we don't even have definitive sources for basic biographical information.

Part of the problem here seems to be that most of the sources are in Japanese, and people are working from the automated translations. It would be good if we had reviewers who can read an evaluate the sources in the original Japanese, but we don't seem to have that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takaya Hashi (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)

I'll repeat my previous argument: "No relevant sources found in the article OR via Google search. Subject is not clearly acclaimed for anything in particular. No news coverage found, either. I believe the subject is non-notable." Additionally, I'll list how little siginificant roles he had:

1) Toki (Hokuto no Ken - supporting)

2) Gilliam (Outlaw Star - supporting)

Subject has made no groundbreaking achievements to indicate what he is clearly known for. Currently, the article is nothing but a credits dump. Also, the only two references found in this article are merely just castlists. That, in no way asserts the subject's notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough major roles to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The first AfD was closed on October 21st, give editors time to make improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed because there were no consensus. It does not the change my belief that the subject is not notable enough for his own article. Judging by what you've said, is John's vote irrelevant, then? Knowledge, there is no relevant sources for this seiyu that screams notability. Of course I would, without a doubt, push for a second AFD immediately. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Extremely bad form here. The AFD ran for long enough to attract a response, having been extended several times. This is an abuse of process to relist it so quickly. It's incredibly difficult to view this nomination in good faith. If this was relisted in 6months time, fine. 2 days is not an acceptable period. It should be noted that the renomination of a page with the same arguments immediately after closing is a listed reason for a speedy closure.(WP:SPEEDYCLOSE) SephyTheThird (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Is there any reason to keep this article without looking into the subject's notability, first? Are you people even doing any investigations? Are you doubting that I'm not contributing to the encyclopedia? Let's face it - the previous debate had no consensus; I shall not repeat myself again. Because none of you people have bothered to vote, that's why a 2nd AFD is absolutely necessary to settle this dispute once and for all. I can assure you that you won't be able to find any sources that could help assert the subject's notability, which is precisely the point of this AFD - to erase this article off of Wiki because it's not needed.

PS: The "response" that you speak of is non-existent. If it was, people would have voted. Now, do you have counterarguments regarding that? I also don't agree that using the same arguments is unacceptable. What, do I have to change my arguments, first? For what reason, and to what end? It's not necessary. I've already looked into the subejct - he is not notable, based on my anaylsis. Of course the same arguments could be applied - could you have thought of another argument in place of mine? Think about it.

PS2: "This is an abuse of process"

Abuse of process?! Literally nobody except Angus weighed in during AFD 1, and he didn't even vote. He just posted the limited significant roles the subject has voiced. Again, almost nobody even bothered to vote or weigh in their opinion on the matter. Nobody. Starting AFD 2 is by no means "an abuse of process". I agree that it's an abuse of process if more contributors feel like the article is better off around than not, and I immediately started another AFD after the initial discussion has closed. Of course, that wouldn't help my case. But it's not the same in this case, because NOBODY VOTED! AFD 1 ended with no consensus. Of course it's perfectly reasonable to demand people to express their opinion and vote, in this case. How could you possibly disagree? I don't understand. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, yes I have done my own investigations. They were not conclusive, hence why I did not offer a vote despite commenting on the original. The issue here is your aggressive nominations which despite having had several complaints and warnings about you have clearly not considered either in this nomination or your reply. What this afd is now continuing to demonstrate is your inability to perform afd's in a neutral and considered manner.

Yes, renominating an article 2 days after it closed as no consensus can be considered an aggressive attempt to delete an article because you didn't get your own way. You have not allowed any time for any further improvements or research to be conducted and have simply tried again with no change to the nomination. It also ignores the wider range of roles he has performed which are not covered in his article due to the typical bias of japanese voice actor listings towards anime roles - which is half the battle. Complaining that no one has bothered to vote, could it be because shock horror, no one had an opinion? This is not a reason to relist an article because no one had any input, that was settled through the closure of the listing.

"Settle this dispute once and for all", there is no dispute. You have nominated an article for deletion, no one saw a reason to either keep it or delete it, so move on. There is nothing to settle. It is highly inappropriate to start a new discussion two days after a listing closed and all this ranting and raving trying to defend it is just furthering the case against you. It is an abuse of process to ignore a result because it didn't result in your preferred outcome. If you list an article at AFD you should accept with good grace the outcome, if you like it or not. AFD is not for forcing your viewpoint across, you make your point in the opening and make counter arguments where necessary, and thats it. You don't pursue the matter in defiance of the outcome. That no one voted shouldn't make a difference because the process has been completed after being dragged out for three weeks. the process is complete. Relisting the article instantly because you are unhappy with the result is not respect of process and it is not helpful. You continue to demonstrate a complete lack of respect to the AFD process and I see no signs you have learned your lesson.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking as if you know how this works. First of all, you are disregarding John's vote, and I'm beyond offended by that. Secondly, "no consensus" is not an acceptable outcome. If you guys had any strong arguments that could help assert the subject's notability, please present them. Unfortunately, none of you had. It is an undeniable fact that because none of you had such arguments that a consensus cannot be reached. I'm 99% sure that none of you could have done anything to assert the subject's notability, so why don't you just quit while you're ahead? Do a proper and thorough investigation (in which I have) before you say anything else. I am, again, by no means abusing the process. No consensus is an unacceptable result. People should be weighing in their POV and vote in an AFD. It's how it's supposed to be. Judging by your reply, you are clearly ignorant of how the process works. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sk8erPrince: The next time you are uncivil I am bringing the matter to WP:ANI, I feel enough people on this project have had it with your snappy remarks. Consider this a warning, and cool it down please. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not particularly fussed about this AFD, but I'd like to point out that the two arguments for speedy keep given above are patently wrong.

(1) The first AfD was closed on October 21st, give editors time to make improvements.

There was no attempt at improvement during the three weeks that the first AFD was running. If improvement was ever going to happen, that would've been the most active time.

(2) It should be noted that the renomination of a page with the same arguments immediately after closing is a listed reason for a speedy closure.(WP:SPEEDYCLOSE)

Not exactly. To quote WP:SPEEDYCLOSE in full, it says Frivolous or vexatious nominations ... includes re-nominating the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected ..." An AFD closed as no consensus due to almost zero participation is not a "strong rejection" of the nominator's arguments.

I do not think the nominator has done anything wrong by starting another AFD.

While I am here, I might as well comment on notability. The Japanese wiki article on the subject has 40 references, but only to confirm the filmography. There are only 4 lines of unreferenced text in the biography section. It merely states he went to high school and junior college, then started his career in stage before moving into television. If the subject had received significant coverage in the past then the bio would have more details than that, even if they were unsourced. So I suspect the subject fails WP:GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Finally - someone's bringing justice to my cause. I really needed that. Thank you again for your support. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instantly resisting a page where the add has just completed is a frivolous nomination. Even the people who do resist articles at a later date have the decency to wait several months first. As for your first point, this ceased to be about the merits of the article as soon as it was relisted. There is a clear insistence by the nominator that this page must be purged from wikipedia just because they do not like it. it's also not just about this article as the nominator has a clear history of gaming the system and has not learnt at all from the last time they tried it.This is just the latest stage in an ongoing saga. If it was an isolated incident I would be more willing to AGF.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want the article deleted because the subject is not notable. This is exactly about the merits of the article, and I have already posted my arguments above, same or not. Sephy, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I am by no means gaming the system. I am following by the rules, per Kobe. Now, let's look at the facts:

1) Neither you nor Knowledge have made any improvements to the article nor further asserted the subject's notability in the previous AFD.

2) Neither you nor Knowledge have read WP:SPEEDYCLOSE carefully, as Kobe has pointed out.

3) Neither you nor Knowledge are entirely focused on the AFD, instead focusing on trivial details that are proven to be a complete derailment to the main topic at hand. If you're going to voice your input, you should focus on the facts, like John and Kobe. Investigate into the subject and determine whether or not they're notable. This is, quickly frankly, what you and Knowledge did not do. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for a significant body of work. Using my rule of thumb for multiple minor roles being equivalent to one major one, passes WP:NACTOR  The Steve  14:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the AFDs below:

-1-

-2-

-3-

Looking at these AFDs, this proves that having acculumated 2 main roles does not automatically mean WP:NACTOR, much less 1. You also cannot stack up multiple minor roles into one main role. That isn't how it works. That, and the subject does not have secondary news articles or strong references to assert his notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be able to stack minor roles, but I can. It works like that for me :) Also, Takaya meets NACTOR criteria 3, prolific contribution to voice acting.  The Steve  20:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not viewed the AFDs above, then. That, or you're just making up your own guidelines. Unless you show me specifically where on Wikipedia I could find such a guideline, I can't possibly view that counterargument as valid. The smiley face also doesn't help. What is this, a casual, friendly internet chat? This is an AFD, where you determine whether or not an article gets to stay or face deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing those AFDs tells me exactly nothing about how many minor roles they had. AfD has many edge cases to consider. For actors, we already know they don't quite meet Criteria 1, "Significant" (note: NOT starring, FYI supporting roles ARE significant, there is an Oscar for them) roles. Knowing that, *I* look to minor roles for notability, and yes, I have my own guidelines for them. I'll write an essay about them someday. I certainly think AfD should be a casual, friendly sort of place. I guess you prefer serious, hostile discussions...  The Steve  15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'"Viewing those AFDs tells me exactly nothing about how many minor roles they had."'

That's the thing. Those AFDs are linked in this debate BECAUSE it illustrates a voice actor that has nothing but minor roles or limited significant roles lay the grounds for deletion.

"note: NOT starring, FYI supporting roles ARE significant, there is an Oscar for them"

Oh, so you're using Oscars as an argument now? Did the subject win any awards for his voice work? Heck, did he win an award that is equivalent to that of Oscar? None, as far as the eye can see. Henceforth, I deem the subject as non-notable. Reasons are already stated above.

"I have my own guidelines for them."

Ok, I see how it is. So you do admit to using your own PERSONAL guidelines as opposed to those listed on WP:NACTOR. Outrageous. You should know better on what is expected of a Wikipedian. You follow the written guidelines, and you stick by them. Your personal guidelines are, quite frankly, irrelevant in this case. Thus, I could pretty much disregard everything you've said.

"I'll write an essay about them someday."

ie. Your personal guidelines are not official, at this current stage. That means nobody has to follow them, and they mean nothing at all.

"I certainly think AfD should be a casual, friendly sort of place."

Friendly? Since when are debates friendly? You are supposed to post the facts. Let me tell you what isn't a FACT.

"multiple minor roles being equivalent to one major one" is definitely NOT a fact. You admitted to making that guideline up, and completely derailed from the official guidelines.

"I guess you prefer serious, hostile discussions..."

Serious, yes. That's how AFDs are supposed to be. They are debates, and at the end of an AFD, the admin decides whether or not the article gets deleted. Honestly, I don't think you quite understand the nature of AFDs. The fact that you made up your own guidelines as opposed to following existing ones say a lot. And no, serious does not necessarily mean hostile. I'm dedicated to my resolve, and I don't think you quite understand at all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The man is the voice of Severus Snape for Japanese audiences, just for one. What definition of "main roles" are you using here? And has anybody saying there are no sources tried Googling the Japanese name? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One significant role does not equate to notability. Add in Toki as well? That's just two. Still not WP:NACTOR.

Snape might be one role, but it also means a role in eight hit films. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I googled his name in Japanese and it came back with 90,000 hits. But I could not see any reliable sources with biographical information on the man in the first five pages of results. How many more pages of blogs, fansites and DVD marketing pages am I supposed to look at before I find the significant coverage? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we've already established that he (1) has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Now you tell me that he (2) has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following (so much so that it is tedious to scroll through all the thousands of blogs and fansites). What you're actually telling me is that he meets WP:NACTOR twice over. user: Thesteve has argued that he meets (3) for prolific contributions. So it looks like a hat trick, when meeting any one of the criteria would be sufficient. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No.

1) [Takaya] has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

False. The two roles listed at the very top are barely significant, and they are just supporting characters. The subject has never had a main role in his entire voice acting career in animations. His role of Severus is merely the voice of a live action actor, and that is also not notable.

2) [Takaya] has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following

Large fan base? No. Fansites don't scream notability. They are merely user generated. What we're arguing here is the subject lacking any actual notability - no siginificant news coverage of him could be found, and that's a valid argument for closing down the article.

"What you're actually telling me is that he meets WP:NACTOR twice over."

No. The two aformentioned points are wrongfully used to apply WP:NACTOR. Clearly, you have not viewed the other AFDs that are posted in this discussion. Or, you don't understand how AFDs generally work.

"user: Thesteve has argued that he meets (3) for prolific contributions."

If an actor's entire career is just supporting characters, that in no way is considered to be "prolific contributions". And I've already argued about being the foreign voice of Severus, whom was originally portrayed by an on screen actor. And even if that role was considered to be notable, that's just ONE major role. The rest are merely just Takaya being a part of the supporting cast. Now, how is that, exactly, considered to be notable? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The two aformentioned points aren't critera of WP:NACTOR"? They are, word for word, the first and the second criteria. It might be an idea to read the relevant policy before deciding what meets it.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you copied them word for word from the guidelines, that doesn't mean you correctly applied them. I disagree with how you applied them. Counterarguments were already stated above. I'm afraid YOU are the one that does not know the policy, not me. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas View this AFD. Akiko, despite having voiced Mega Man.exe (the lead role) in FIVE Mega Man NT Warrior series, totaling 200+ eps, still does not meet WP:NACTOR. Nowhere on Severus's Wikipeda page could we see Takaya's name listed. Comes to show you that being the voice in a foreign language dub of a live action movie series does not scream notability in any sense of the word. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the Harry Potter franchise is in any way comparable for its impact to Mega Man Nt Warrior? And that something not being mentioned in Wikipedia demonstrates that it is not notable? As AfD arguments go, that really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing the two series. I'm just listing an example where a voice actor having voiced as a main/important character, or even two of them (see the AFDs above) does not equate to notability. Also, Mega Man NT Warrior is notable - it's popular enough to get a dub produced by Canada. And even then, Akiko's page got deleted because she's not notable. Applying the same argument here, being the voice of a foregin dub of an internationally acclaimed live action movie series (Harry Potter) is also not notable, and even if it was, that's just ONE major role out of other minor roles that the subject has voiced. Of course Takaya's name not being mentioned in Severus's Wiki article is a good example of him being non-notable. This isn't an animated series - being the foregin voice of a live action actor does not scream notability at all. Basically, what I'm saying is: You could A PART of a notable series, but that does not equate to notability. If being a part of a notable series earns you your own Wikipedia article, then I'm sure every single actor that has participated in the Inuyasha series would have their own, whether it's the original Japanese cast or the English cast. However, as a matter of fact, that is not the case. You want to know what real notability is? Here, take a look. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't an animated series" - where does the notability guideline say voice actor roles only count if they're voicing cartoons? The article you link to as a specimen of "real notability" shows just how niche animation is. In most non-English-speaking countries, voice actors who dub major films are important industry figures. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animation is niche? Come on, that has to be the most ridiculous joke I've heard of. I'm sure that Dragonball is niche, Attack on Titan is niche, Bleach is niche, and so is One Piece and Naruto. Also, all of Hayao Miyazaki's works, produced by Studio Ghibli, MUST be niche, too. Hopefully, you could tell the sarcasm in this - comes to show you that you couldn't be more wrong. Also makes me wonder why someone as ignorant as you are is even participating in an AFD about voice actors. Of course, it also goes without saying that the likes of Takaya cannot be compared with Bruce - the latter is known as the voice of Richard Moore in Case Closed, Dot Pixis from Attack on Titan, Tanaka from Black Butler, AND Makarov Dreyar from Fairytail. Just counting those four roles is WP:NACTOR right there. You know, there is a reason why I used Bruce as an example - Takaya and Bruce are of similar age, but the latter is clearly more notable than the former. Hopefully you could see that by now. It's also important to note that Kobe's points are not to be dismissed, either - there really is no secondary news articles that help assert the subject's notability. If there was, I wouldn't even have nominated the article for deletion in the first place, even with the limited significant roles the subject has.

"where does the notability guideline say voice actor roles only count if they're voicing cartoons"

Nowhere. But I think it's non-notable, merely being the foreign voice of a live action character. Feel free to disagree, if you'd like. But I'll reassert that point as many times as it takes. Again, nowhere is Takaya's name found on Severus's Wiki article. If that particular dubbing role was indeed as significant as you say it is, I'm sure even a passing mention could be observed on it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

"In most non-English-speaking countries, voice actors who dub major films are important industry figures."

A completely baseless statement. Where's the proof that supports it? I live in China. Hong Kong, to be specific. We have a voice acting industry here, but it's niche. Hong Kong Chinese do produce foreign dubs of live action shows and movies. And of course, voice actors are hired to voice in them. Guess what, though? Pretty much nobody knows who they are. Not even the Hong Kong locals themselves. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why none of the Chinese voice actors have English language wikis dedicated to them. Take a look here:

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

The truth of the matter is, you're generalizing most voice actors in non-English speaking countries that dub major films are important industry figures - not only is that statement baseless, but I believe it to be completely false as well. I will continue to hold this claim until you could prove otherwise. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not registered a formal "vote" above, so I will do so here. First, to clarify a comment above about the many websites his name appears on, they are sites about the works he has appeared in. They are not fansites or blogs about the subject, they merely mention his name. So he does not have a "cult" following. If he did have a cult following then the biography on the Japanese Wikipedia would be full of trivia, rather than the current four sentences.

We have established that there are plenty of non-reliable sources which provide a list of the subject's filmography. Does Wikipedia need another list that pretends to be an encyclopedia article? We don't have even the most basic information on the subject, such as where he was born. The article assumes he is a Japanese national because he speaks Japanese, but we cannot even say that with certainty. There is zero significant coverage resulting in zero biographical information. It doesn't matter if the subject wrote WP:NACTOR himself, it is a guideline and not a golden rule. NACTOR is a section of the page Wikipedia:Notability (people). Quoting from the top of the page:

This page in a nutshell:

•A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

•All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.

Despite his long career, this subject fails these two basic requirements. Those who disagree may wish to read WP:WHYN. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed with Kobe. I really don't think that a lot of people understand that most of the articles I've nominated are based on this section on WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well it has been almost 2 weeks now, a more solid resolution would be helpful for whoever closes this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WHYN as no sources have been presented that would enable editors to write a balanced biography. No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail are in the article either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not shown notable and independent coverage per WP:RS sources not presented. Kierzek (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I've done what I can with Google Translate, but it really needs the eyes of someone with Japanese who isn't put off by the sheer number of mere-mention Google hits his prolific credits list entails. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Five sources have been added to the article. The first is a profile at talent-directory.com. That website states it "collates information about celebrities with a policy of "fact first", relying primarily upon public documents and statements by the subjects themselves." In Hashi's biography they provide three sources, one is an excerpt from a 2001 interview published by the author of Legend of the Galactic Heroes and the other two are from Hashi's management agency. Putting aside the question of independence of these three sources, all they confirm is that (a) he was born on September 8th (but not the year) in Tokyo, (b) he has a long list of credits, and (c) he "was about 35 years old" when he received the role in the Legend of the Galactic Heroes anime. Turning back to the talent-directory profile, everything else in it (which is not much: his year of birth, college, height, blood type and year of turning professional) is unsourced. Can we treat that site itself as a reliable source? Despite their claim of being "fact-based", I have my doubts.

The second source is a similar "information compilation" site, this time quoting no sources but adding that Hashi's hobby is cooking.

The third source is a list of actors who have appeared in films that the blog's author has seen at the cinema. The author has seen five films that have featured Hashi's voice. The author opines "most people with the name 土師 pronounce it 'Haji', but the actor apparently pronounces it 'Hashi'". No idea who the author is, he only gives his name as "GO".

The fourth and fifth sources are brief statements by Hashi about his work on Harry Potter and All Out.

So, the only source which comes close to providing reliable biographical information is the first one. We now know with some confidence that Hashi was born in Tokyo in September about 60-65 years ago. The year of birth and college are probably correct, but I would say they are not reliably sourced. I thank Andreas Philopater for their effort, but I am not convinced that notability has been established. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2016 (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.