Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teruaki Georges Sumioka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Secret account 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teruaki Georges Sumioka[edit]

Teruaki Georges Sumioka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sumioka "is a philosopher, film theorist (Film Grammar and Media Business), and creator", we're told. "In consequence of Wittgenstein's Language game and Speech act of Ordinary language philosophy, he studied Ontology of Act and Agent of Act from the aspect of Logic against the Epistemology of modern Subjectivism begun by Descartes." Et cetera. Putting aside linguistic oddities in the phrasing, his philosophical endeavor may or may not be impressive -- but none of it is sourced. Or on film: "After Baumgarten, he thinks that beauty is the sensitivitical argument on truth. To explain this, he turned his attention to Diagogue in film instead of Dialogue and found Diactic instead of Plato's Dialectic. This Diagogue exists not only between the persons in a film but also between the filmmaker and the audience, so that the T Grand Structure of film consist of both Diagogues." When I turn my attention to film I tend to see formulaic plots, gruesome dialogue and, if the film is Japanese, formulaic/hammy acting; but I don't claim significance for my insights. If significance is claimed for Sumioka's insights, I want to see some signs of a secondary literature about them. Neither Google Scholar nor Google Books provides such signs. True, I only searched for the man at those two via the roman alphabet; when I look in Japanese, I see stuff by him, retailers' adverts for his books, and bloggery; I see nothing substantive.

Nihonjoe prodded the article but Roundthetwist (the latest in a series of SPAs to have shown interest in this article) added a source for one claim in it; I inferred a rejection of the notion that the subject wasn't notable and therefore removed the prod notice.

We have reliable sources to back up the claims that Sumioka has worked, or is working, here and there. These claims are by themselves not of interest. What does he do when he works? No reliable, independent source yet adduced says anything about his insights, let alone that they have had much effect on anyone other than Sumioka himself. So what might be notable is not referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, only as academic I found them at once in google.

--Roundthetwist (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and I see that you have already started to add more sources to the article. I wonder, though, if there are independent sources for (e.g. discussions or at least mentions by other scholars of) his theoretical insights. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list above:

-- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) revised 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you cannot see is the very story on "Diagogue" and the "T Grand Structure" that you have deleted.--Roundthetwist (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you are talking about. What "story on 'Diagogue' and the 'T Grand Structure'" have I, or has anyone, deleted? Or do you mean the Wikipedia articles on "Diactic", "Spiral Up Structure", "Action line" and "Multicoverage" that were deleted as a result of this "AfD"? (English-language Wikipedia has never had an article on "T Grand Structure", although thanks to Janine Garnier the notion and Sumioka do get a mention within the convoluted article Implied author.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be little of substance. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't find any evidence of notability. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as an article without source, any opinion without evidence is nothing in Wikipedia. Now, reliable sources are fulfiled. Then, without prejudice, check WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Enough, so we have to KEEP IT by the guideline. That is all.--Gunpowderrice (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome, new editor. My opinion is that no evidence has been adduced for any claim made in the article for more than humdrum notability. This claim of mine itself has no evidence, but of its nature it need not and indeed cannot have evidence; on the other hand, it could easily be refuted if evidence existed. Now, which of the nine criteria of WP:PROF does Sumioka meet? (Please don't say that as a 教授 he has met criterion 6: a typical Japanese university has hundreds of 教授.) And which of the five criteria of WP:AUTHOR does he meet? -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teruaki_Georges_Sumioka&oldid=1069503516"