Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michiko Suganuma: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:41, 2 August 2008

Michiko Suganuma

I posted this article was posted on the BLP noticeboard about a month ago, hoping to attract some help with bringing this article up to snuff. The state of the sourcing in the article is deplorable, and I cannot readily find reliable sources to prop this article up with. WP policy on biographies of living persons says that it's better not to have the article than to possibly get the article wrong. Given the difficulty of finding reliable source material, and that removing the un-supported content from the article would essentially mean removing the article; I feel that deleting the article is the only logical step left, barring an attempt to rescue it. Dalamori (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Dalamori (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep, the article just needs work, not a reason to throw the thing out. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A guide to the National Gallery of Victoria exhibition [1] describes her as a leading kamakura-bori artist, and supports the claim to having a solo exhibition at the Gallery in 1984 (p11). p15 indicates that her works are held in the Museum Collection.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "held the first living artist’s exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne." is sufficient for notability, & a source is present for that. DGG (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sufficiently notable. For help with verification, may I suggest approaching the WikiProject Japan folks? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note, btw, that BLP concerns are usually much stronger for negative statements about living persons, and that positive (and even neutral) statements are much less anxiety-producing when it comes to verifying them. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, permanent collections definitely are notable.Yama88 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Give people time to flesh it out. Seems notable from what I've read here. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :* I note, btw, that BLP concerns are usually much stronger for ''negative'' statements about living persons, and that positive (and even neutral) statements are much less anxiety-producing when it comes to [[WP:V|verifying]] them. —[[User:Quasirandom|Quasirandom]] ([[User talk:Quasirandom|talk]]) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''', permanent collections definitely are notable.[[User:Yama88|Yama88]] ([[User talk:Yama88|talk]]) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
+'''keep''' Give people time to flesh it out. Seems notable from what I've read here. ([[User:Roodhouse1|Roodhouse1]] ([[User talk:Roodhouse1|talk]]) 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC))