Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asato Ikeda

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. Sandstein 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asato Ikeda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was de-PRODded with comment that AfD can hash it out. So I ask, does this person meet WP:NPROF? Doesn't seem to to me -- assistant professor, no evidence of great scholarship to meet criteria. Two of the six sources (#5 and #6) are about a single exhibition that they curated, not about the subject. One is standard university CV (#1), another is standard staff directory listing (#2). Another is about an upcoming book (#4). Where's the beef? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations are very low, the highest apparently 8; Art and War in Japan and its Empire has been cited five times. The 'third gender' exhibition received coverage (not surprisingly); its curator did not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Observations here are consistent with why PROF does not generally consider entry-level academics to be notable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - This is just wrong, she is positively notable. She is the author of two volumes on subjects almost nobody else is writing about in English. Secondly she created and curated an important exhibition which originated at a National Gallery that of Canada. To then take that as a point of departure and use the word associate as in associate professor as the operative term of paramount insignificance when what is of importance is her accomplishments elsewhere regardless of that it is just words. Next people's placement within a hierarchy includes many variables which account for nothing as per the rest of their totality. Thirdly she is a Japanese woman operating in the West in the forefront of her field as an art historian and art professional bringing rare knowledge of precious antique Japanese art to the public and writing about it in notable publications. She is notable.38.81.108.227 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, she's doing the type of work typical of an academic. Every research academic is an expert in their particular field. What is lacking is notice/impact of her work. This rarely comes at the asst level. Agricola44 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- What on Earth does her curating an exhibition at a museum or wiritng a book have to do with her being an assistant professor it makes no sense one has nothing to do with the other. Why are you set on stereotyping academics what is your fixation on hierarchies as sell-fulfilling determinations of notability it is just absurd. The effect my dear debate acquaintance is that she brought the appearance of the third gender the intersex persons in historical Japanese art to the public by curating the exhibition in major venues and writing. She is writing about art from one hemisphere in another one entirely different culture in another. She is helping to extend our notion of who humans have been what roles they have played at different times in different societies and some who are looking for it to mirror changes now here. She is also essaying other topics like Japanese and armor and japanese contemporary art,, she is bridging gaps and building perspective and that is one of the ways in which we learn. Her speaking on the exhibition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1vThzF6Rw and here almost 25,00 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3iHjynkM3o 38.81.108.227 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us here know a great deal of how academia works. You are oversubscribing the significance of "novelty" and "discovery" of her work in the following sense. All scholarly work, by definition, generates "discoveries" (scientific, artistic, mathematical, etc). It is the minimum by which one retains their position. What is required here is that these discoveries are "notable", as opposed to incremental, unimportant, etc., etc. "Notable" can mean many things, a reasonable summary of which is contained in WP:PROF. What my !vote is based on is the fact that, as the nom summarized, there are no obvious signs that this person is anything beyond an average entry-level professor. May be notable in the future, but that would remain to be determined. Hope that soothes and clarifies. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-I just put she is also a post-doctoral fellow38.81.108.227 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-in-tree videos get 25,000 views too [1]. Doesn't make the incident or the rescuer notable. Ditto for postdocs: there were 68,000 of them just in biomedical fields in 2014 [2]. It is highly unlikely either one of these criteria are relevant in this debate. Unless this is to become an indiscriminate collection of cats in trees and tens or hundreds of thousands of postdocs. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userfy I don't think she quite clears the bar, but with some coverage of her curating work already and a solo-author book apparently on the way, I could see that changing over the next year or so. The article as it currently stands does not look overly promotional to me, so we might as well hang on to it in draft or user space. As a side note, I think this is a case where we're far enough into the humanities that GS citation metrics won't be very illuminating. Per WP:PROF, "in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)". XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. That's why we've long used WorldCat and DGG's rule-of-thumb of at least 2 good books from reputed publishers to make judgements under the PROF umbrella in this area. Agricola44 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the work here comes even close to meeting notability criteria. Holders of post-doctoral fellowships are rarely notable, and nothing here suggests otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.