Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saeko Matsuda


 * 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. The numbers are equally balanced here but the arguments are not. Some of the keep arguments merely allude to a policy or guideline, while User:Erik, in particular, gives the most considered argument about the article. Erik's concerns were not really addressed, even by the comment and links added by User:Calathan. Recreation is possible if this can be sourced, and I'm not averse to userfying if someone wants to work on this. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Saeko Matsuda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Editor stated "reference, rm prod as he was a producer in several notable series per WP:CREATIVE". I don't think that being a television producer is sufficient evidence that this "person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". In fact, the producer is generally more of an administrative or organizational position, so doesn't fall under WP:CREATIVE at all. While we can confirm that this person exists there's no other biographical information available in the references provided or in web searches. Fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A producer's role is far more than just "administrative". The are heavily involved with selecting the screenwriters, director, the cast, and other key personal for a television series along with approving scripts. Their role in guiding the overall creative progress of a television series is a important as the director or writer and thus falls under WP:CREATIVE as much as the other two positions. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Farix. A film's producer is indeed an essential part of a film's creation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A producer's role is notable, and he has thus had notable roles in notable productions.  D r e a m Focus  15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Farix and above, passes #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What rationale is being used to include this article in WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE? ENTERTAINER applies to "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities". CREATIVE could apply under "creative professional" if we accept that producers are such, despite Farix's claim that their role is solely "selecting the screenwriters, director, the cast, and other key personal(sic) for a television series along with approving scripts", all non-creative tasks. But which criteria of CREATIVE does he satisfy? Pburka (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".  That the individual's works have themselves been the subjects of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews meets the criteria under WP:CREATIVE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's reading a lot into one word in the credits. While a producer might have a major creative role, he could also be the person who arranged financing for the production or the person who managed the shooting schedule. Producer is a vague term which can encompass a huge range of roles. Without any supporting references I don't think that we have evidence that he played a major role in co-creating these productions. Pburka (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – I think notability is primarily determined by how much has been published about the person in question, regardless of their role in film-making. If it were a fleshed out article with plenty of sourced biographical details and career exposition then I don't think that would be a problem, but as just a list of credits then I certainly agree notability has not been established. The producer may have worked on notable films, but the article doesn't tell us anything about the subject.  Betty Logan (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not entirely correct. While yes, having coverage in multiple reliable sources is nice for showing notability, it is not the only way such can be determined. The WP:BIO are set in place to help in determining notability in the lack of significant coverage.  Being verified as meeting WP:CREATIVE through contributions to notable productions does not slao demand significant coverage... as WP:V and WP:GNG are not the same thing... asneither are WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG.  While yes, knowing more about an individual is wonderful for our readers, Wikipedia does not demand that everyone notable must seek or be sought by popular media.  Some folks perfer their privacy... and we respect that choice and offer our readers what we are able. That the article lets readers know he has been part of notable projects is decent beginning.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply to producers. Secondly, WP:CREATIVE #3 can be applied here: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I think it's fair to say that a producer has a major role as a co-creator, generally speaking. Can we agree that there is no "collective body of work" that Matsuda has that has been covered or reviewed? That leaves us "a significant or well-known work", and judging from the individual works in Matsuda's filmography, nothing stands out as such. To me, "significant or well-known" is a higher standard than just "notable". My preliminary research shows that none of these works jump out, and I assume that the articles would only become decent through a pretty major scraping-together of sources. With this being the case, the producer may fail WP:CREATIVE #3, and falling back on WP:BASIC, for which there is no apparent coverage of the person itself, the producer fails that too. Can anyone please demonstrate that one of Matsuda's works is significant or well-known? None of them have won any awards and have very sparse IMDb pages, for starters. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Contrast Matsuda with Charles Roven, for example. Many of Roven's films are significant or well-known, even though his biographical detail is lacking. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of notability (see above comment). Referencing WP:CREATIVE #3, there is no indication that anything that Saeko Matsuda produced is either significant or well-known, which to me is a higher standard than just the works having their own articles on Wikipedia. None of the works have won any awards, and none of them are forthcoming with coverage of fame. Since the topic fails WP:CREATIVE, we fall back to WP:BASIC, and there is no independent coverage of the figure himself. Google News Archive Search in Japanese shows nothing, and Google Books Search in Japanese shows books too old to be referencing this figure. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik, I was planning to reply to your earlier comment on the notability of his works this weekend when I will have more time. I'll reply now though and try to add more if necessary.  Contrary to what you've said, at least one the anime TV shows he produced did when a signifcant award, as Kamichu! won an excellence prize at the Japan Media Arts Festival.  Furthermore, I am confident that Kamichu!, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, and Xenosaga: The Animation have recieved multiple reviews from reliable sources (which I can link here this weekend when I have time to look them up).  I'm sure that it would not require "a pretty major scraping-together of sources" to make those articles decent, depite the fact that they are lacking in references right now. Calathan (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to reconsider if one of the works is significant or well-known; I was not having any luck finding the multiple reviews for the different works involved. Let me know if there's anything you find. Regarding scraping-together, I've just seen citespam in the past to make the topic look especially notable. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, turns out I had no time this weekend. But anyway, Kamichu!, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, and Xenosaga: The Animation have all been reviewed by the reliable sources that normally review anime, such as Anime News Network  and Mania.com .  Those sites are well accpeted as reliable sources, having been used as sources in several featured articles here.  Since WP:CREATIVE #3 specifically lists having reviews as one thing that shows a work is "significant or well-known", I don't see any way to say that he doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE if it applies to producers.  Now, I'm presonally not certain that WP:CREATIVE does apply to producers, but given that you consider it to apply to producers, I don't think it is reasonable for you to say he doesn't pass that guideline. Calathan (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, no secondary sources exist for this person. No analysis of his methods, style, etc. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:14, 18 January 2011 (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.