Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masami Masuda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 18:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masami Masuda

[edit]
Masami Masuda (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)

This biography fails WP:ARTIST. As he is residing in New York for a long time, his English name would show some sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It does show sources - I suggest searching for "Cusi Masuda" through Google and observing the various media sources that appear, including New Yorker volumes, Locus and Sulfur. I am confused as to how you can claim that there are not some sources when many of them are, in fact, included in the article. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources must be Reliable sources not primary sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marvellous Spider-Man: yes. I know. Do you think the New Yorker is a primary source? Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the new yorker source? Does those sources describe the person in depth. Is there more than three source where he has been extensively covered? And I checked "Cusi Masuda" in the news after your comment. He is a living person and should be in the news. I got nothing for Masami Masuda also. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will unpack those questions from the last one, in reverse.
First: yes, he is a living person. If you have read the article you will also know that he is 72. There is no expectation that a 72 year old performance artist will still be active, and thus covered by Google News, and the BLP policy has nothing to do with that assumption.
Second, I would suggest checking in Google Books, since historical (i.e.: pre-2000 or so) news sources are not included in Google News. If you do so, you will see multiple references to works including him, although unfortunately those core works are not entirely available. One that is, however, is an issue of Sulfur, an extremely prominent art magazine of the 80s, that includes multiple discussions of his work (see here for the index). There is also this work, which references his work being included in the Museum of Applied Arts, Vienna, and a reference to his work being included in the Flaxman Library. All of these things are, in fact, included in the article, which is what makes it so very confusing that you are repeatedly claiming here there are no sources for him.
Third: the standard is not "three or more sources" it is "multiple sources". And, fourth: here.
At this point I am extremely frustrated with this deletion discussion. You have nominated this for deletion, claiming there are no sources, when the article contains three sources - two of them with web links. You have claimed that the New Yorker is a primary source (it is not), claimed that I need three sources (I do not), and asked more questions than you have done homework. You could have asked these questions on my talk page, without nominating it for deletion until you were actually sure the article was not worth including, and treated me as a competent human being. I hope you will do so going forward. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not able to view the NewYorker source. If any other user can access the source and confirm that this painter is extensivelly covered, and fulfills the number 4 criteria of WP:ARTIST, The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums., (as the criteria number- 1,2 and 3 is not satisfied) then please close this discussion as withdrawn by nominator. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You, again, misunderstand the notability criteria. Artists are eligible under both WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTS. Simply establishing that multiple sources provide substantive coverage - which I have, through the book and the Sulfur pieces - is sufficient. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think he meets GNG and the Gbooks results suggest to me that that isn't even the same person whose work appears in the Museum of Applied Arts, for we seem to have results both for a visual artist and an engineer, who was with or at the Faculty of Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University. I think two people may be conflated here, and regardless, the one in question fails WP:ARTIST. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shawn in Montreal: I understood that meeting the General Notability Guideline was sufficient even if individual subject-area guidelines did not - am I mistaken? (I would be very interested to see the TMU result, not because I doubt you but simply because I could not find that information when initially trying to add sources to the article). Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I seem to be able to find sources (added). Critical assessments of his work by people like Donald Kustpit and Leon Golub and inclusion in the MAK show ought to count for something. WP:ARTIST#1 perhaps: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers, or 4c: has won significant critical attention. He may be obscure or forgotten now, but this wasn't a nobody. Mduvekot (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bona fide references have been found for the artist, not the engineer, searching with the article subject's unique nickname. Striking through my delete !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 13 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Masami_Masuda&oldid=1138060735"