Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jori Tokyo


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jori Tokyo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a young artist with some local exhibitions, but no identifiable notability beyond that. There are no references at this point and none seem forthcoming at this time. A google search reveals only the usual myspace/facebook/blog hits, with no independent coverage. Also of note, the artist herself, as the editor Christina Staub is using Wikipedia to attempt to establish notability, by adding her pseudonym to various inappropriate lists (ie. Fluxus). Christina Staub claims the authorship of this, uploaded as a Jori Tokyo work  freshacconci  talk talk  18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the photographer of both uploaded new images to this artist. He is a known person in the fields of cyber-arts and deserves for sure an entry at this platform. DoroDeichbrugg (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina Staub (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment How many accounts are you using? The above comment was made as Christina Staub. Now you've changed the signature to DoroDeichbrugg. First, you should read policies on sockpuppets. Second, this invalidates one of the two keeps (although I stress that this isn't a vote per se, both comments are made by one person). And finally, using at least two accounts to edit and comment on a deletion discussion makes me wonder about the reliability of your claim that you are not the artist.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the assistant of Ms. Christina Staub and helped her by an issue here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In my check for this artist i found a couple of notable fluxus-activities, performances and much more related mentions in several categories like performance, Ars Electronica and conceptional art. Harrassment against such a bunch of works should not become a reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Schliemann (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)  — Jonas Schliemann (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom..Modernist (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Many Fluxus artists, Performance artists and Conceptual artists of note have articles on Wikipedia, please focus only on the merits of this article...Modernist (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. JNW (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per JNW. Setwisohi (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As Jonas. Just flicked in a few spots i found lately about the artist.
 * Cyber Art Wirxli Flimflam
 * Placart Headphone Festival
 * DeRe 2005
 * Arts Birthday —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)  — DoroDeichbrugg (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Two of those links are blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. The other two seem to be listings. Again, not reliable, third-party sources. No one is doubting that this is an artist who has exhibted his work. The issue is around notability and verifiability of sources.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin No keep comments have yet been added by regular or established editors. Perhaps that will change over the next day or so? Perhaps not. Setwisohi (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. No independent coverage and the wiki is being "used" as clearly shown by Freshacconci. It's clear the issue is around notability and verifiability of sources, which I cannot see at this time. -- Arty pants, Babble 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And slight influence from the person that's using multiple accounts to try to save it.  129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Everything I could find were social network sites, blogs, directory entries but nothing tthat would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fluxus? Gotta be kidding.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (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.