Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-dada organizers


 * 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.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Neo-dada organizers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possible WP:COPYVIO, notability not substantiated. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The copyright violation has to be fixed and the article more fully referenced, but Neo-Dada was one of the more important art movements in Japan in the 1960s, with the Organizers quite prominent in that. In the least, the article has to be renamed "Neo-Dada Organizers" to match sources. A short search just of Google Books already finds many references:, , ,  (this is a list of references), , , etc. I found the Japanese Wikipedia article and linked it to this, and it has a number of references too. One issue is that now both the Japanese and the English Wikipedias have articles on Neo-Dada and Neo-dada organizers. There is some overlap. The former is about a worldwide art movement, the latter about one group participating in that movement in Japan. Some could argue that the latter could be merged into the former, but I believe there is enough material to justify a separate article. Michitaro (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Copyright violation. If subject is notable the article needs re-writing completely as this is wholly a copy and paste article from http://www.urbanhumanities.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/FA13-Body-Violence-City.pdf ツStacey (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article--mostly just by cutting it down--to avoid the copyright violation. Michitaro (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - With the copyvio removed, there is no longer any problem. A2soup (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Technical note - I moved the page to Neo-Dada Organizers to facilitate incoming links, something that should probably be noted by the closer. A2soup (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this seems improvable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Neo-Dada. It's good that the copyright violations were cleaned up, but there still remains the question of how much there can be said about this group.  The article tells us that it was limited to ten artists who were active over a three year period, but I've seen another source that says the group was smaller and lasted less than a year.  The article itself only identifies six artists and gives us a (presumably) complete schedule of activities that spans only about six months.  Add to this the fact that the Neo-Dada article is itself pretty short.  This looks to be a situation for which WP:NOPAGE applies.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide this other source that says it lasted less than a year? The time span of three years comes from the Oxford Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art. The schedule of six months you reference is not presumably complete - it is from an essay subtitled The Neo-Dada Art Actions in 1960 Tokyo, explicitly limiting the time frame covered to only 1960. A2soup (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification of the timeline. The source I spoke of is here.  But just to be clear on the basic point -- I am NOT advocating "delete".  I don't question the notability of the group; I just think that the material would be better placed within the article for Neo-Dada.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if there are only a few people, if they are notable enough, they can form a valid artistic movement. Since the movement is in fact referred to in standard references books, it's notable.  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (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.