Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villa Kamogawa


 * 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 redirect to Goethe-Institut. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Villa Kamogawa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability questionable, broader international coverage not evident, and sources appear to be promotional. Acousmana (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Goethe-Institut. Delete . My source evaluation: #1 bild.de, RSN described it as a tabloid. #2 seems promotional, but could be legit, not sure. Original article at . #3 government website, not secondary. #4 is an interview. #5 is just a list of residents, seems primary. #6 looks like a blog. #7 wordpress.com, self published. #2 is the only source that MIGHT pass GNG. Searching for "Villa Kamogawa", not seeing significant coverage in the first page of Google News results. I would say redirect it to whatever article contains info about "the three major German arts residency programs abroad", but I did some googling and Wikipedia searching, and I couldn't find the name of the program/government agency responsible. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Novem, there are not enough sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply:Hi Hulatam – multiple independent and reliable sources added to article. Pls check. Planetdust (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: sources found in the article: Bild Zeitung, Focus (German magazine), Deutschlandfunk Kultur, Deutsche Welle – respectively "the best-selling European newspaper and has the sixteenth-largest circulation worldwide", "one of the 3 most widely circulated German weeklies", the cultural channel of "Deutschlandradio, a set of national radio stations" and "a German public state-owned international broadcaster [...] available in 30 languages" (quotes from their WP articles). Broad coverage in German broad media. Further features exist, including in Die Zeit & Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (two more national broadsheets) + some Japanese sites (#7 – that doesn't appear to be wordpress/self-published, Novem Linguae?) which I'm not fit to evaluate. The pieces in Focus, Bild, Deutschlandfunk & DW qualify this as one of 3 or 4 major German residencies abroad (Kulturakademie Tarabya in Istanbul being the 4th, added recently).
 * Question: were does the proposed criterion of "broad international coverage" (see Acousmana, above) come from? I couldn't find it in WP:ORGCRITE. It seems unlikely that subjects of predominantly national / binational interest necessarily require broad global coverage to establish notability. Compare French & American Academy in Rome for current state of sourcing for other notable artist residencies. The former article is poorly sourced, the latter has no international coverage at all.--Planetdust (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello friend. The source numbers changed since I did my evaluation. Here's what the article looked like when I evaluated the sources. Bild and WordPress.com are both red at WP:RSPSOURCES. My evaluation of the two new sources is:  gives me an error 404, and  is not significant coverage (mentions Kamogawa zero times, Goethe one time). If I am misunderstanding something, I am happy to be convinced. Thank you. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: Hi Novem Linguae, you are right. The DW link had an error – fixed: Also, D.Dörrie is mentioned on page 3 there – I couldn't find a way to link to individual pages within the article. But it is a feature about those 4 "major" German residencies. The Zeit Feature does not mention the name Kamogawa indeed. Since the full name of the residency is Goethe Institut Villa Kamogawa, it is referred to as Goethe fellowship in the article. Maybe the article should be renamed to reflect the full correct name (see ). The 4 residencies are run by different organizations.
 * The Zeit piece is not a source relevant to the notability of the institution itself (mention in passing) – only a source for the fellowship status of the artist mentioned. I believe the other press features I mentioned in my previous comment are reliable and independent sources, leading at the German national or European level. Viewing Bild, "Europe's biggest newspaper" (circulation), as unfit to be considered in matters of notability might be a bit of a stretch. What do you think? Planetdust (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello friend. Thanks for the detailed response and the updated DW link. 1) The DW article isn't bad. I think that would possibly qualify as WP:SIGCOV for an article on "German artist residences abroad" or something like that. But I think it only has a paragraph on Villa Kamogawa, so in my opinion it is not SIGCOV for this article. 2) Sorry, I can't budge on Bild being an unreliable source. To get added to WP:RSPSOURCES as red/generally unreliable means that it has been discussed thoroughly and multiple times at the reliable sources noticeboard. 3) Today I found the related articles Goethe-Institut and List of Goethe-Institut locations. At this point I am thinking maybe we should redirect Villa Kamogawa to Goethe-Institut. Also, Villa Kamogawa is only one paragraph... if it fits, we could possibly just move that paragraph into one of the two articles mentioned. Thoughts? Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for the input! I wasn't aware of WP:RSPSOURCES. The discussion around Bild's reliability assessment  does not look balanced or neutral to me, but I will not embark on an evaluation of that. DW devotes one individual section of a feature, also singling out those 4 residencies (there are more, non-major). The most in-depth coverage here probably is the Deutschlandfunk feature. I agree that redirection to Goethe Institut, with a subsection on this residency program, might generally be feasible. Personally I don't see why this is justified since most similar residencies do have individual articles, similarly badly sourced – compare Villa Aurora, Massimo, French & American Academy in Rome etc. Looking at the German article, I guess there's potential for expansion, thus the present brevity might not reflect the full significance of the subject. On the other hand it's a newer institution than, say, Villa Aurora, so there's less history. Planetdust (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to take up too much of the conversation here, so I have posted a reply on the talk page. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am convinced by Novem's analysis of the sources, as being either primary or promotional, which violate Wikipedia's guidelines for organizations. The additional sources that Planetdust mentioned above are mostly brief mentions of the organization in stories or promotions of other connected things, and they only prove existence and not notability. I can find nothing else that satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - article has been overhauled with multiple reliable independent sources added, several of those cover the institution itself in depth. Novem Linguae and I have different opinions on the reliability of Bild, particularly on non-political or non-biographical topics such as artist residency institutions. But even without that source, I still believe notability is given – see refs 3, 4 & 5 in particular. The article might need expansion, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. The institution is also distinct enough of the Goethe Institut organization and its regular locations, thus I believe Keep is more appropriate than Redirect. Planetdust (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The German sources that are openly accessible provide marginally significant coverage. Some of the German sources are firewalled; they either improve the coverage or don't make any difference.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The author of the article isn't helping by being hostile, and is being hostile, but this is a content dispute about whether to keep an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Goethe-Institut, per Novem Linguae, and introduction of an "artist residencies" section there would seem appropriate. Acousmana (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:VERIFY and WP:ORGDEPTH. This is the English language encyclopedia yet all of the sourcing is in German or Japanese.  Verifiability is cumbersome at best. Those who don't read these languages have to run the citations through machine translations. While these translations can sometimes be amusing at best they only give the reader a general sense of the subject matter.  I ran "Villa Kanogawa" through a search engine only came up with hits from booking sites.  If the supporting citations are only in German or Japanese that suggests the subject lacks broad geographic coverage.  In a nutshell, it fails WP:GNG based on lack of verifiability and significant coverage. Blue Riband► 06:30, 7 March 2021 (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.