Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryoei Saito

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 of the debate was redirect to Portrait of Dr. Gachet. howch e ng {chat} 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoei Saito[edit]

Really rich guy notable only for paying a ton of money for a painting. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text in this article is practically taken word-for-word from Portrait of Dr. Gachet. (aeropagitica) 19:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The painting episode makes him sort of a historical figure. Lukas 19:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a near certainty that he was also notable for his wealth and business career, so we should allow this to be added. Would an American who had paid $82.5 million for a painting be nominated? I think not. Calsicol 19:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, DON'T ACCUSE PEOPLE OF BIAS WITHOUT PROOF. I resent that a great deal. I don't give a shit which country he is from. Non-notability is non-notability, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The threat to have the painting burned made national news (I've heard of it and I don't have any interest in the art world at all). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portrait of Dr. Gachet since there is really nothing here which is outside of that context. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Just zis. Grandmasterka 04:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portrait of Dr. Gachet, unless you deem the Japanese businessman deserving an entry of his own. --Kaishin 16:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portrait of Dr. Gachet unless the article can be expanded to be something other than a footnote for the painting article. --nihon 01:45, 16 January 2006 (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.