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.
Seems to be questionable with meeting
WP:GNG criteria. Reads like an advertisement. Most sources are a mere trivial mention of the subject of the article and some are just selling things or are promoting him.
Seawolf35 (
talk)
22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify and revert to
this old version. Current version is
WP:PROMO for a brand. The article is primarily focused mostly around a brand named after the subject, and would need to meet CORP even if it was not promotional.
Looking at the article history, it looks like it was created by an account as an imperfect draft stub, still slightly promotional but not as bad
[5] and submitted to AFC. It was declined for notability reasons. As a BIO, Oaktree's sources may help with that (but not as CORP).
Delete. It's not just the typical aroma of
advertising that's fouling up the text, it's the lack of significant, acceptable sources
supportingnotability, a lack buried under an
overkill of lame irrelevancies. It only takes a few minutes of forensic work to confront it. To wit:
A local website listing rather indiscriminately local people, as it does
here with our subject; a state organ promoting "Japanese talent", in general, as in
here; some
article about a group of designers among whom our subject is mentioned;
this report on "Juniors Fashion Week", in which, again, our subject's name surfaces once; the
commercial listing of our subject's photography book posted upon its publication; another
commercial listing, this one by a "textile & sewing producer"; Fédération de la Haute Couture et de la Mode is a prestigious institution but its use as a source has no merit, being a
simple listing of our subject; more brochures -
this one's about a dance event, which does not even mention our subject, and neither does
this about an opera; at least,
this report about a ballet mentions Nakazato once, as many times as the Japan Times yearly
round-up; another prestigiuous institution's website, the
Barbican's, is scared up, yet it's only one more
exhibition catalog; and so on, and so forth. Then we descend to the level of primary sources such as the
brochure for "Fashion Frontier Program" written by Nakazato who's also the creator and owner of FFP.
Delete. Fails
WP:NCORP and as such the article as written is not suitable for main space. Draftify is also an acceptable outcome. The sources found by OaktreeB do indicate that an article on the person could pass GNG; although an article on the company would not. This article could be re-tooled into a biography page that passes
W:GNG. However, we should require that the draft pass an
WP:AFC review to make sure it has been suitably modified.
4meter4 (
talk)
15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete As nom, it fails
WP:NCORP as of the moment and kind of needs a
WP:TNT to have a future entry.(If this is considered vote stacking please discount this opinion and strike this vote)
Seawolf35 (
talk)
14:14, 5 October 2023 (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.
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.
Seems to be questionable with meeting
WP:GNG criteria. Reads like an advertisement. Most sources are a mere trivial mention of the subject of the article and some are just selling things or are promoting him.
Seawolf35 (
talk)
22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify and revert to
this old version. Current version is
WP:PROMO for a brand. The article is primarily focused mostly around a brand named after the subject, and would need to meet CORP even if it was not promotional.
Looking at the article history, it looks like it was created by an account as an imperfect draft stub, still slightly promotional but not as bad
[5] and submitted to AFC. It was declined for notability reasons. As a BIO, Oaktree's sources may help with that (but not as CORP).
Delete. It's not just the typical aroma of
advertising that's fouling up the text, it's the lack of significant, acceptable sources
supportingnotability, a lack buried under an
overkill of lame irrelevancies. It only takes a few minutes of forensic work to confront it. To wit:
A local website listing rather indiscriminately local people, as it does
here with our subject; a state organ promoting "Japanese talent", in general, as in
here; some
article about a group of designers among whom our subject is mentioned;
this report on "Juniors Fashion Week", in which, again, our subject's name surfaces once; the
commercial listing of our subject's photography book posted upon its publication; another
commercial listing, this one by a "textile & sewing producer"; Fédération de la Haute Couture et de la Mode is a prestigious institution but its use as a source has no merit, being a
simple listing of our subject; more brochures -
this one's about a dance event, which does not even mention our subject, and neither does
this about an opera; at least,
this report about a ballet mentions Nakazato once, as many times as the Japan Times yearly
round-up; another prestigiuous institution's website, the
Barbican's, is scared up, yet it's only one more
exhibition catalog; and so on, and so forth. Then we descend to the level of primary sources such as the
brochure for "Fashion Frontier Program" written by Nakazato who's also the creator and owner of FFP.
Delete. Fails
WP:NCORP and as such the article as written is not suitable for main space. Draftify is also an acceptable outcome. The sources found by OaktreeB do indicate that an article on the person could pass GNG; although an article on the company would not. This article could be re-tooled into a biography page that passes
W:GNG. However, we should require that the draft pass an
WP:AFC review to make sure it has been suitably modified.
4meter4 (
talk)
15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete As nom, it fails
WP:NCORP as of the moment and kind of needs a
WP:TNT to have a future entry.(If this is considered vote stacking please discount this opinion and strike this vote)
Seawolf35 (
talk)
14:14, 5 October 2023 (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.