Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kae Masuda


 * 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 Delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kae Masuda
vanity Flapdragon 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Is this person really notable? Looks like vanity to me. Flapdragon 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This artist IS notable actually. Why remove something just because YOU don't know about it? Keep this article please. I am certain it will be expanded. Some people are far too quick to censor. User: Saintjohnny Keep as long as it is expanded on. Notability is not an issue in this case, as the artist has had work exhibited and this has been sourced. Disagree strongly with Flapdragon. That said, more info would be useful. Saintjohnny As long as a performer / artist / entertainer has done some kind of public, professional work, they can and should be entitled to an entry on Wikipedia. I always thought that this wonderful resource was supposed to be absolutely democratic and open to all. With all due respect, I do feel that you have jumped on this entry and wish to impose a very narrow, very unhelpful set of values, which in my opinion, are at odds with the values of Wikipedia itself. Of course there has to be notability, but a quick surf on Google should confirm that this artist is indeed notable. That said, I will be happy to amend the article (and it is not mine) if you have some constructive suggestions on how to do so. Lesser known personalities have a right to be included too!
 * Then you won't have any trouble establishing that in your article. Why not expand it yourself, instead of leaving it to others? So far, her notability is certainly not obvious. A phrase like "She is considered to be an exciting new talent, and art critics are keeping a keen eye on her progress", apart from being far too vague and approving to be encyclopaedic, gives the impression this person has yet to make her mark. Hard facts would be better. Flapdragon 02:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other than the anonymous comment above, no attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be deleted unless expanded, as you say, then you don't disagree strongly at all. I'm willing to believe this person is worth having but no notability has been demonstrated yet, which shouldn't be difficult if they are really notable. Just "having had work exhibited" isn't really enough. We can't include every singer that has performed in public, or every actor who has ever trod the boards. Flapdragon 16:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We agree again -- notability is an issue. Even when space is not an issue, we have to draw the line somewhere with the "lesser personalities". The "democratic and open to all" part refers to contributing to Wikipedia, not being in it! Why should performers and artists be treated differently to other professions? An artist is not notable just for being an artist, any more than a teacher, builder or website designer. There's nothing personal about it; articles must establish that the subject is worth including. I have nothing against this individual, I only asked for some evidence that they have done enough to appear in an encyclopaedia, and there is still none in the article. Yes, that will be to some extent subjective, but there are some guidelines at WP:BIO. It would be great if the creator of the article or someone else who knows about it would just take a little time to make this into a worthwhile article. Flapdragon 17:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Saintjohnny You didn't really address my point. Again, give me some guidelines on what you think should be in there, and I will use them as a basis to expand on this article. What do you want? Your criteria for being "worthy" of an entry in an encyclopaedia are frankly ridiculous. Take a random surf on Wikipedia and have a look at some of the entries under any profession you care to name. Or any subject for that matter. It is most definitely not your role in this to start imposing what should or should not be there, although I absolutely respect your right to raise the objection. I really do struggle to see what your problem is with the entry. I have verified for myself that this artist is a professional in her field, and has had her work exhibited at a recognised venue, by an established and known gallery. Again, please search Google. Your problem seems to be that she is a non entity, not worth (in your view) anybody reading about. Well firstly, I think it is very unhealthy for one person to start deciding what others read, and secondly, your objection has no basis anyway. So, once again, please tell me what you think should be under this entry, and I will endeavour to provide you with it.


 * Please read the guidelines already quoted. It may be your opinion that "As long as a performer / artist / entertainer has done some kind of public, professional work, they can and should be entitled to an entry on Wikipedia", but Wikipedia does not agree with you. We are still waiting for some evidence of notability. Flapdragon 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom, google has 16 uniquish hits that aren't wikipedia... -Andrew 03:15, 1 November 2005 (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.