Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi

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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsu Hadeishi[edit]

Non notable creator of meditation weblog. Article is also an advertisement for this weblog. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, given Ism_schism (talk · contribs)'s Quixotic deletion spree. Google search news — goethean ॐ 14:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The pool of talent in the neighborhood is nothing if not eclectic. It includes the sculptor Tim Blum, whose cast metal figures and faux-scientific contraptions are based on Duchampian puns, and Mitsu Hadeishi, a young filmmaker and philosopher who studied physics and dance at Harvard and uses his loft for screenings. --Art section of The New York Times
  - Reply The above reference is only in passing. The article is not about Mitsu Hadeishi, but only mentions the person. For this article to stand it needs two things. First, how is this person notable? Second, what reliable sources back up these claims to notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question What signs of notability led to this article being created? Does anyone, and/or the author of the article, know of any reliable sources that are not included in the article? It is possible that this is a niche field, and the subject is notable in that field - but sources are needed to establish notability in a niche field. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The google news search link provided by Goethean seems to me to prove his non-notability: it finds only four stories, all seemingly mentioning him in trivial ways. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage required by WP:BIO. — David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above although I am somewhat of an inclusionist. Also, I find the reference above to "Ism_schism (talk · contribs)'s Quixotic deletion spree" highly inappropriate and irrelevant. Experienced editors often take on tasks in "batches"; today it might be proposing articles for deletion, tomorrow it might be adding project templates, etc. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read the very brief article, and was left saying "And?" There's nothing there to assert notability, nor does there seem to be anything else asserting his notability, either. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Fg2 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe there are publications in the Japanese language. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's take a look at the article. It states the following: (1) The subject is a computer programmer, experimental film curator, and the author of a blog. (2) The blog discusses certain topics. (3) The subject organizes events at his loft. (4) The subject heads the technical development for an internet company. Statement 1 does not include any reason for an encyclopedia to have an article about him; being any or all of those things is no particular reason for inclusion. Statement 2 is about the topics in the blog, but does not add any information about its importance, such as its influence on a community. Statement 3 adds some human interest, but still doesn't say why Wikipedia should have an article about him. Statement 4 would be the long-sought-after reason for an article about him if it said he heads development for some important company for which development is important, but there's no information about the significance of the company, or even the importance of development to the company. Nothing answers the question, "Why should Wikipedia have an article about this person?" Fg2 (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Indeed, Mitsu Hadeishi is no one who merits an article unless we all are. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have listed the article under Website deletion sorting to see if any editors in that project have anything to say on the notability of the site Synthetic Zero weblog, that is central to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:But if Synthetic Zero weblog is the one that is notable, then what we do is to have an article on the blog, not its author. -- Taku (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't look like that he is notable. -- Taku (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent 20 minutes trying to find reliable sources to support this article, in both English and Japanese, and found nothing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:53, 20 July 2008 (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.