Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kogonada

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 move to draftspace. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) @LionFosset, please continue to improve the article with new reliable sources here—if the artist continues to receive coverage, we can eventually move back to mainspace. czar 03:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kogonada[edit]

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

The only actual source is ref 15. Otherwise we have the promotional interview in ref 3, whose preface claims he's important because he's had work "commissioned work from the Criterion Collection and the British Film Institute"-- Everything else is either a links to his own work, or the refs from 9 thru 14, cited to show that other people also produce video essays on film. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Video essays are becoming more and more significant as a new form of criticism and analysis for film and television critics, which is why I created an article about one of the more notable video essayists in the filmmaking community other than Kevin B. Lee, :: kogonada. If I were to create an article about Nelson Carvajal, I might understand contentions of notability, but :: kogonada being praised in the New Yorker by Hilton Als and invited to be part of the jury for the 16th LPA Film Festival (which I admit were only added after this nomination) is not nothing. I'll improve the article and its references, but if you, as well as others, still couldn't find notability for this person, then I respect that, being much more learned than I am about these types of processes and regulations. LionFosset (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker item is a single paragraph in an article about "10 best of the Year", an wide ranging survey of theater and other arts. IUts a very impressive paragraph indeed, nonetheless. The Festival is I think a relatively minor one. See what more you can find. (The article would read less promotional if it were not constructed as a string of quotes, and I'd list notable works of his in a separate section to avoid confusion with the references.) DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever took the time, but I'd prefer not to have a wiki page. All the best, K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.138.114 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If :: kogonada says it to be so, then okay, this article can be deleted. Apologies, :: kogonada, if this isn't an article that was necessary and appropriate to create considering your anonymous identity. I merely wanted to add knowledge to Wikipedia about what I think is becoming a large, important, and essential trend for the filmmaking community: video essays. Thank you for understanding.LionFosset (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the film Columbus^[1] reaches popular acclaim, this page will likely be recreated regardless of :: kogonada's objections, simply from the fascination with someone who chooses to be anonymous yet work with well known actors such as John Cho and Michael Cera. Unless anyone can request a page being removed no matter how notable they are, it seems like it is better to have a passionate editor like LionFosset create the page, rather than whoever comes next. Note that I'm not saying we should ignore :: kogonada's wishes, but if Wikipedia will ignore his wishes later, it is better to keep the page and the work that has already been done. Jason Tracy (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.therepublic.com/2016/08/04/new-columbus-movie-makes-architecture-a-character-in-the-film

My personal preference is that we should keep the page, but simply put "At the request of :: kogonada, a full Wikipedia page will not be created." along with a very brief summary. Jason Tracy (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:26, 15 August 2016 (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.

[1] ttp://www.therepublic.com/2016/08/04/new-columbus-movie-makes-architecture-a-character-in-the-film

[1]