Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuriko Yamaguchi (sculptor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuriko Yamaguchi (sculptor)

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Johndarrington as nn-bio, but it's an artist. Also the original author was User:Petaholmes, an administrator. Brought to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see how being an artist automatically makes a person notable. Neither do I understand why created by an administrator is relevant. jmd 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Being an artist is not itself notability, but it is a claim to notability, which is all that is required to prevent being a speedy delete. And the fact that it was created by an administrator is relevant because we can assume that user has a grasp of the policies which apply here, although that doesn't trump a consensus we find here. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I refute your statement that being an artist equates to a "claim to notibility" --- at least notable enough for a wp article. There's an artist in all of us --- it's just that some are more artistic than others. Or perhaps you mean that it must be a paid artist, in which case a) you're discriminating against some very talented (and notable) unpaid amatuer artists; and b) why can't this apply to other jobs (doctors, laywers, butchers, dustmen ....) ? If the article said that "YY is a notable sculptor", then that would be different, but the article doesn't say this. jmd
        • I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Yamaguchi is necessarily notable. However, speedy criterion A7 requires that there be no claim to notability at all. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Exactly. As deletion is supposed to be a serious matter, I'm pretty strict with the application of the speedy criteria. A7 is supposed to be limited to those with no claim of notability whatsoever, "Joe Schmoe lives in New York City and drinks lots of beer," for example. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Now that this article has been expanded, I'm withdrawing my deletion vote. But I'd like to point out that when I listed this article, there was indeed no claim of notability whatsoever. The article listed the person's name, occupation and education --- nothing else. What if your hypothetical article said "Joe Schmoe attended New York University, works for as a town planner for the City Council and likes to drink beer," would that have made it notable? jmd
  • Keep and expand. Seems clearly notable, even if the article doesn't show that yet. u p p l a n d 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do you say notability is "clear"? What makes it clear to you? jmd
      • Based on a Google search and looking through a selection of the hits, showing her being exhibited at major museums. u p p l a n d 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This artist is definitely notable -- even a Google search makes that clear. N Shar 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Weak delete: doesn't seem quite notable enough after comparison with standards for bands, etc.
    • But the article doesn't assert that. Therefore it's a valid speedy candidate. If this person is indeed notable, then the article should be expanded, giving reasons for notability. Otherwise it should be deleted. jmd
  • Delete [This] google search result just doesn't scream out notability unless I am missing something, in which case let me know and I am happy to change my vote. Eusebeus 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Changing vote to Keep - this is hardly an artist of much note, and the padded CV posted by Pburka contains a lot of shows of largely indecipherable notbaility, but her inclusion in a few galleries of note means she meets the threshold for inclusion. Eusebeus 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • After looking through about 10 pages of Google hits I have decided that her notability is not quite high enough to warrant inclusion, so I have changed my vote. However, I do think that to say immdeiately "nn" is to ignore the full story. Also note that if this Yuriko Yamaguchi is not notable enough for inclusion, the other one probably is not either. N Shar 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Please note that I didn't say "this person is not notable". I said this "is an article about a real person or persons that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". There is a difference. jmd
  • Keep and expand. http://www.koplindelrio.com/yamaguchi/yamaguchires.html provides an impressive list of exhibitions. Pburka 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on references from Pburka. -- JJay 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of Pburka's list. Impressive is right. ×Meegs 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you basing this impression on quality or quantity? I'm not an artist of any sort, so I can't comment on the prestige of these various awards, or the reputability of the awarding institutions. But my own CV is equally as long, so does that qualify me for a wp bio? jmd
      • I'm not familiar with most of these galleries, no, but 30 solo exhibitions throughout the US (plus a few in Japan) is, to me, exceedingly notable. ×Meegs 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. JMD, if your résumé is as impressive as this, you qualify for a biography on Wikipedia in my book. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 08:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not the run-of-the-mill teenage vanity article, a few seconds of googling indicates some notability, and it is an article created in good faith by an established user. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the discussions on academics, I also think we need to ask: is this person really less notable than the least notable professional baseball or hockey player who would be included according to our current notability criteria? Is an artist who is represented in several public museum collections, has had numerous exhibitions at both museums and private galleries (who presumably expect either some income from sales or to enhance their own prestige by exhibiting a certain artist), and has had a large number of articles or reviews written about her or her work in major newspapers and art publications really less notable than some 22-year old who has just played hockey in the NHL for a year? u p p l a n d 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is indeed an interesting topic for discussion. The crux is, that notable is not the same as noteworthy. For example, Martin Bryant is certainly more notable than (say) Frits Zernike, but IMHO less noteworthy. I would certainly agree that the huge majority of sports personalities are totally unworthy of any special notice (what's so clever about kicking a ball around?) but that's just my POV. That fact remains that the world has and does take notice of many of these persons who have not managed to outgrow their teenage infatuations (or have found a way to make money from them), and are therefore by definition notable. I'm not saying that this isn't a very sad inditement on society, but that's just my POV. jmd
  • Keep per above.

Werdna648T/C\@ 09:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep & Expand If you don't let a small article stay how can it ever be added to? -- Cogsy 11:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep. She's in the Smithsonian people! --Samuel J. Howard 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , notable enough Mushintalk 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has works in major museums, large number of independent google hits, many substantial. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article has strong potential, including possibility of adding photos of her works. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep significant contemporary artists represented in several imporant collections. --nixie 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Her work is in major galleries. Now let's see some photos! --kingboyk 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I was just looking at something of hers in NMWA this afternoon, funnily enough. And she's made it into at least one fairly notable magazine (there was a good profile in Washingtonian a few months back). Definitely notable enough for a keep.--AlbertHerring 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:14Z
  • Keep and expand. Entry on Artcyclopedia.com, exhibits in 2 significant galleries are notability enough for an article Cactus.man ✍ 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, notable enough. --Terence Ong Talk 13:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
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.