Deletion of Akihiko Saito

Comment: The third point of  is that "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." Saito's role is central to the event and obviously supported by multiple online news references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: There is ample  for this in Japanese and international media, to include BBC, Japan Times, CNN. Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BASIC)

Comment: to Capture of Akihiko Saito and '''redirect''', the capture and death of Akihiko Saito received significant coverage from reliable sources, therefore the event was notable. The event https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Akihiko+Saito%22 received mention in multiple reliable sources after the immediate time which the event occured, and thus can be said to meet . That being said the subject did not receive significant coverage outside of the event (his capture which lead to his death) or at any point before his capture; therefore I would argue that the subject falls under , and as such a biography of the subject should be incorporated into an article about the event. If such an article becomes too large per , a biography article can be recreated at that time
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:BIO1E||WP:LIMIT)

Comment: I don't think Bueller is quite correct here. As  clearly states: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Therefore the statement that "notability must be established in the article itself" is not Wikipedia policy. True, the burden is on those asserting notability to show that independent RS really do exist, but there is no requirement that the article itself must reflect those RS at the time of the AfD. Notability must be judged on the existing article and its potential for expansion, not on its current state. It can of course help any article up for AfD if someone puts the time into inserting those RS during the AfD process
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRVE)