Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoshikawa Tomizo


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yoshikawa Tomizo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Few sources give any significant coverage on him.  Dr Strauss   talk   18:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as the sources here in fact satisfy WP:ANYBIO and the claims in the article are significant claims; as by WP:BEFORE, attempts must be made when relevant and, in this case, that involves offline searches, especially since my linked search shows pre-Internet sources. WP:BEFORE also says that there are alternatives to Deletion in the chances of such offline sources. I'll also add that I found this this significant albeit non-English source; the nomination cites no attempts at searching beyond English, since the subject wasn't American or English at all. SwisterTwister   talk  18:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: here we are again, citing WP:BEFORE and not at the list of sources he's cited.  Who'd have thought it?  The Google Books link shows nothing but passing mentions.  In fact, the majority of the sources are about an army deserter of the same name.  Read all of those sources on that list and you'll find no significant coverage.  And the specific source you've mentioned is a list of photographers and says nothing about him in-depth.  Google Translate might be of some use in future.    Dr Strauss   talk   19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply:, you talk of "the sources here". Which sources? (I see a lot of mentions of people who happen to be called Yoshikawa Tomizo, and of Yoshikawas and Tomizos; I see very little about this Yoshikawa.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. If you have some offline sources, please do tell us what they are, we don't have magic powers and I have no reason to suspect there might be any. It's fairly obvious that this fails WP:GNG. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  19:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a source in the article. Have you read and understood it? If not then how can you have no reason to suspect that there might be any sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Google Translate is a good place to start.   Dr Strauss   talk   19:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you direct that comment at me? It's a good place to start for those who question whether it is a valid source, or those following WP:BEFORE to look for other sources to determine whether this is a deletion candidate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you asked if had read and understood the source.  And nope, it isn't valid if you're wanting to assert notability because it simply doesn't.  Have you read and understood it?    Dr Strauss   talk   20:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I have not read the source because I don't have immediate access to it, so I haven't said whether or not it confers notability, but you and Aguyintobooks have both said or implied that it does not confer notability, a determination that can only be made if you have read and understood it. Why can't you answer the simple question of whether you have done so? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes is the answer you're looking for.   Dr Strauss   talk   12:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great. As regards your suggestion to use Google Translate, did you find a digital version of that book that can be put into Google Translate? I have been unable to find one. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have immediate access to the source. The book's in front of me as I type this. Yoshikawa is described as a portrait photographer. (Actually I think I have a book of his somewhere, but I can't be bothered to look for it right now.) It points out that he won an award in 1965, and that he was chairman of Tokyo Shashin Kenkyūkai (東京写真研究会; literally, the Tokyo Photography Study Group) the following year. If you poll http://digitalmuseum.rekibun.or.jp/syabi/app/collection/search and ask for 吉川 富三 as the 作家名 (creator), you'll see that the Tokyo Photographic Art Museum has forty prints by him. (I only glanced quickly. Some of the forty may not be prints.) He also has an entry in a dryer and more inclusive reference book, 日本の写真家 (which, like the former book, has an English alternative title -- Biographic Dictionary of Japanese Photography -- but is in Japanese only. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. being iincluded in a standard reference work has always been considered proof of notability . But the article does need expansion to show it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't think it has . Independent, reliable sources are what we need, not passing mentions.  We judge things as they are and not as they could be, if it isn't expanded to show his notability it should be deleted.    Dr Strauss   talk   19:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the reverse of our notability guidelines. We don't judge articles for notability, but article subjects. I would still like to know where you found a digital version of the book cited in the article so that I can check it for myself, as I would like to emulate Hoary and you in doing, via Google Translate. Or were you lying when you said that you had read and understood it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Renowned" is stretching it. "Known; and where known, respected" would be more like it. He gets a page in the cited book because something by him was, back when the book was being prepared, in the collection of the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography. Hundreds of others are there too; and hundreds of near-identical substubs were automatically generated from these (every one of them claiming that the photographer was "renowned"). &para; I think he meets the notability guidelines. But is there any chance that anyone will want to develop this useless substub into an article worth looking at? I've done a few of these already and really can't be bothered to do any more; I don't remember seeing any interest among WP editors in writing up 20th century Japanese photographers who don't happen to be famous/trendy outside Japan. &para; For a list of these undeveloped/underdeveloped, computer-generated things on Japanese photographers, click here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: re DGG and Hoary's remarks, the award isn't significant enough to pass WP:CREATIVE and other things existing isn't a rationale for another thing's existence.   Dr Strauss   talk   12:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither DGG nor Hoary made either of those claims. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to thank for clarifying the nature of the reference. If something can be shown from the stub to be notable, and it is the type of subject that would be appropriate to an encyclopedia, there is no reason for deletion of a stub. I can't work with Japanese photographers unless there happen to be good English references, but many people here can. If someone comes along who has seen the name but knows nothing further, at least there's a useful identification. Looking back to 2001 and thereabouts, the entire encyclopedia grew from stubs. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A few minutes ago, when less sleepy than I was yesterday, I looked again, and found that yes, the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography possesses forty prints of/by Yoshikawa. For all its irritations (exhibitions of insipid work, insipidly curated exhibitions, etc), this museum is by far the most important museum/gallery of photography in Japan. (It certainly has a splendid library. And the other museums of note tend to be dedicated to a single photographer.) It's not a portrait gallery, so a portrait in its possession is there less for the person portrayed than for the photography/portraiture. Forty is a non-trivial number, and their storage imposes a non-trivial burden on the museum. I infer that a museum of note regards Yoshikawa as notable. Therefore, we should as well. &para; is right: many people here could work on this article. If they wanted to do so, that is. Beyond the trendy -- Araki, Kawauchi, Moriyama, Shiga, Sugimoto, Yokota, perhaps a few others -- few Japanese photographers are currently of interest to more than one or two editors; but who knows, this might change. &para; I'm alarmed by 's recommendations above of Google Translate. Translating from Japanese into what it calls English, Google Translate very often gets particular lexical items right, but typically is confused by grammar. It typically serves up a semi-comprehensible mishmash that might make some kind of sense if you apply guesswork, but a sense that could well be quite different from what was actually meant. It's highly irresponsible to put in an encyclopedia material derived via the combination of Google Translate and guesswork. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said put GT material in. I told another user that it's a good place to get a rough translation to ascertain notability.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But, even if Google Translate provided a perfect translation, how could I use it to translate a printed book? How, for the third time of asking, did you manage to do that? Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, he also appears in a number of volumes of The Complete History of Japanese Photography. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. And if you're in Japan, it's very easy to get hold of these three volumes. NB they're in Japanese, and only in Japanese. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * so i wont be adding them to my artbook collection (drat!) Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You could enjoy the pictures, though, Coolabahapple. Plus the spines might look attractive on your shelves. (Confession: I've always wanted to have a book or two with a spine in Georgian or Burmese.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above sourcing, slash WP:NPOSSIBLE. The English Wikipedia has become the default reference work for the world, full stop. It is unlikely that one of our regulars would have the language skills necessary to develop this, but given the above sourcing and comments, it is very much possible that someone with the language skills and who lives in the correct geographic location could develop this. It matters because if we want to be taken seriously as a reference work and maintain the reputation that we have worked so hard to attain, we need to make it so that people can find notable subjects from their region of the globe. Even if it is a horrible sub-stub, keeping an article on it is important and factors in to Wikipedia's growth as a reliable source of information about art and culture of regions that are currently underrepresented. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of availbale sources in reptuable pubclications. Google books link cited above turns up nothing. Notability is not established by sources presented or by a web search.198.58.170.90 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the source that was already cited in the article before it was nominated and the further sources found by Hoary and Coolabahapple above. I don't see anything at all disreputable about those publications. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that there is no reason to delete this stub, and that non-online sources are valid references. Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2017 (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.