Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyoshi Shiina (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Shiina

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Queried speedy delete as "deleted and recreated", but User:CrazyAces489 told me that he has permission at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 20 to recreate the page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject based on martial arts notability. Subject of independent articles.

Daily News good [1]? or Hartford Courant [2] ??

- blackbelt magazine

Daily News [3] and Hartford Courant [4]as references] Made NYT [5] 7 Dec 1980 Japan Judo, a "dojo," or judo school, in Stamford run by Kiyoshi Shiina, who possessed the highest ranked black belt. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A similar comment to another article championed by the same editor also up for AfD review. The prose style (although better here) and reference formatting make it really hard to judge WP:GNG. A large quantity of references, often repeated, of dubious quality, and mostly only passing mentions do nothing to establish notability. It would really help to judge one way or the other if the references could be fixed up. The article probably does not meet WP:MANOTE on its own.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAnother Independent Article
thumbnail|left -->
thumbnail|center -->CrazyAces489 (talk

Delete and Salt This article was speedily deleted last week. There's no reason why this article should keep being recreated when there's no new evidence of notability. Lots of passing mentions and articles on some of his students do not give him notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMDTemp - The article was allowed to be recreated as per [6] . I have placed in a number of articles that show notability as per the links above and within the article. I have also placed in an independent article onto this AFD. Please read this as well. Also what does Salt mean? CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were allowed to recreate the article once, but that doesn't mean you can keep doing it. Piling on passing mentions doesn't show notability. What makes him more notable than he was at the previous AFD discussion?Mdtemp (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI was allowed to recreate the article this past fall. I didn't keep doing it, I did it once. It was speedily deleted, to which I put up a message stating that it was allowed to be recreated. There are a number of new articles as well as the article on this AFD that is directly about him from the United States Judo Federation. I placed it right on the page. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some work on this article, attempting to bring it up to standard based on some of the claims made for the subject. Unfortunately I could see no real notability for the subject. There are multiple trivial mentions of him in notable publications, including adverts for his club that were placed in newspapers and promotional biographies placed in Black Belt magazine in the 1960s. There's just no significant independent coverage of him. I don't doubt that he's a talented judoka and coach. I don't doubt that he's a nice guy. I just don't think he merits a wikipedia article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the sources mentioned here and in the first AfD discussion and I agree with Catfish Jim's assessment--there is simply not enough significant coverage to show he's WP notable. However, that doesn't mean he's not a good judoka and teacher. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions are not enough to prove notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable within the Judo community 24.103.234.74 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very obviously passes WP:GNG by any standard for bio information in any other sport, would even say it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think if it was obvious it wouldn't have been deleted originally and there wouldn't be this protracted discussion. Can you please point out the multiple cases of significant independent coverage that show he's notable? Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USJF magazine, NY Times, St. John's University, Daily News, Oswwegian, and others. They do exist. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable and well known judoka98.14.108.64 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 98.14.108.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 09:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks a lot like the first AfD discussion--lots of NYC IPs claiming he's notable but not giving instances of significant coverage. Passing mentions do not verify notability claims. I don't believe the coverage meets GNG or the achievements meet MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Possibly because he is well known in NYC. There is a national article USJF, and that has a whole article dedicated to him. There are mentions of him in magazines from the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and 2010's all surrounding judo. Six different decades shows notability! CrazyAces489 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Made NYT [7] 7 Dec 1980 Japan Judo, a "dojo," or judo school, in Stamford run by Kiyoshi Shiina, who possessed the highest ranked black belt. appears to me to ice the notability issue. Collect (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Note that I am not an IP, and I find the dismissal of all who find the topic to be sufficiently notable to be distasteful. Wikipedia does not require "extremely notable" for this type of article. The first AfD close basically discounted all IP !votes, and failed to consider that if a topic meets notability guidelines that "I do not like the topic" is not a valid policy-based argument for deletion. Collect (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In martial arts "highest" (context?) rank is not an indicator of notability, nor is running a school or who you trained which is all the The NYTimes article supports. The article itself was about Joe Wanag and therefore again a single passing mention. The AfD is not a Vote - never has been - and I don't think the closing administrator discounted the IP opinions.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the closing statement on the earlier AfD "!Votes from new and unregistered users have been given lower weight," which sure looks like the closer gave IP opinions lower weight. Nor is arguing with those who hold opinions contrary to your own likely to benefit the purposes of the discussion here -- the goal of this page is to determine whether there are policy-based positions which call for deletion, not whether you like or do not like a topic or person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Remember WP:MANOTE is a guide not law. IP opinions are their beliefs and should be held as being valid. He would be notable according to WP:ANYBIO and WP:SPORTCRIT. 5 decades of coverage in magazines in the 1960's to 2010's from the NY Times, USJF Magazine, Daily News, Black Belt Magazine, Hartford Courier, The Oswegian, etc shows notability. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to draw attention that the two named accounts who voted keep last time got specifically asked to come an comment here (this and this) this seems to be a WP:Votestacking problem"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion", "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." - 100% of the name account keep voters who hadn't previously voted here seems likely undue. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not consider the contact with me to have been "votestacking" - the issue is whether "two" is a "disproportionate number" in the case at hand. I simply made the same comment as before, which was valid then and remains valid now. As it is policy-based, the concept that my information is now made less valid is nicely Dali-esque. Collect (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment they have done their research on the topic. Cindamuse passed away, Paparusa already voted the same way he did previously, Astudent0 doesnt post on wikipedia anymore . CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't post often, but I still post occasionally.Astudent0 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember the first discussion. I don't see major new sources that show notability and I don't see any additional achievements that add to his resume. Because every organization has their own rank hierarchy, rank has never been considered a valid indicator of martial arts notability here at WP. No argument that there are a number of passing mentions, but WP requires significant coverage. Bottom line: doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment There has been a few new sources since you last reviewed the article. This includes the Oswegian, The Torch, and an independently made article from the USJF.

File:Shiina.jpg

Coment One of the most Technically skilled Judoka Outside of Japan. The Torch April 9, 2014 http://issuu.com/stjtorch/docs/final4.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs)

I have to say this is one of the problems of massing references with what looks like very little discrimination. The article uses this reference twice - once saying most skilled in Japan and the other most skilled outside of Japan - which one is it - I can not tell from the link.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small error, in the article it says inside. http://issuu.com/stjtorch/docs/final4.9 Page 9 CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a statement for a student newspaper to make.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, especially PRehse. Thought experiment: If you'd take away the name dropping and the blatant attempt at self-justification that this article makes, you wouldn't have anything left. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only independent reliable sources mention only in passing. The rest of the article is simply an attempt to justify itself passing the Notability criterion. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Jsharpminor, this article here is from the USJF magazine. The original national federation of Judo. This is not a passing mention and independent of him.

File:Shiina.jpg

CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Default to keep per CrazyAces489 and Collect. Nearly all of the coverage about the subject comes from the pre-Internet era. The most promising one (The New York Times) is behind a paywall so the depth of coverage cannot be assessed. Here are the sources (primarily passing mentions) I found about the subject, which might be helpful in verifying facts in the article:
1. Parton, Keese (1980-12-07). "Judo Champion, 14, A Stylish Stalwart; Young Judo Champ Fights for Perfection". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  
  They found the perfect advance course: Japan Judo, a "dojo," or judo school, in Stamford run by Kiyoshi Shiina, who possessed the highestranked black belt in
  The article is behind a paywall, so cannot be viewed in full.
2. "2 Japanese Take President's Advice". Kingsport Times-News. United Press International. 1962-07-08. Archived from the original on 2014-12-29. Retrieved 2014-12-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Westfield, N.J. (UPI)—Two Japanese college graduates have taken President Kennedy at his word and opened a business here.
  The two, Kiyoshi Shiina and Yoshicado Yonezuka, are 1960 graduates of Nippon University. Gratified to read Thursday that the president had invited the Japanese to invest in the United States, the two promptly opened a school to teach judo.
3. Coffey, Wayne (1998-04-26). "A Vision From Within She Is A Mother Of Three, A National Judo Champion... And Blind". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2011-03-23. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Ninety minutes after dinner, Perez kisses the kids goodbye and heads for Kiyosh Shiina's storefront judo school on Bay Parkway.
  ...
  It was just two months ago that Marybeth Perez won her national title in her first competition with the U.S. Association of Blind Athletes (USABA), in Colorado Springs. It earned her a place in the world championships this summer in Spain, where Kiyosh Shiina expects big things from her.
  Shiina has been teaching judo for nearly 40 years. He never had a sightless student until Perez came to him six months ago, and has not often seen the likes of her determination.
  "She's very, very exceptional," Shiina said. "Even big, strong guys come in here and can't take it. Not just in handicapped, but in regular competition, she can be a top player."
4. Greeney, Bob (1991-02-05). "Greeney". The Hour. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Wanag was coached by Kiyoshi Shiina, and as Wanag puts it, "I owe a lot of my accomplishments to my judo instructor Mr. Shiina. I highly doubt I'd be where I am today if it wasn't for him. He taught me judo."
5. McCormack, Tom (1992-07-22). "Persistence pays off for Wilton's Wanag". New Haven Register. Archived from the original on 2014-12-29. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  
  When he was just 8, Joey Wanag of Wilton would be taken faithfully by his mother, Mary, three days a week to the Japan Judo & Karate School in Stamford.
  His teacher there, Kiyoshi Shiina, saw almost immediately that he had more than a curious pupil on his hands. He had a boy determined to excel.
Cunard (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable enough for an article.--TMD Talk Page. 03:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question he has passing mentions, which is all these are. Also, notability is not inherited from your students.Jakejr (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jakejr, look up at the USJF article, that is a dedicated article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has some significance. He had a few students who are somewhat notable. I could de-orphan this article without problems, since he already was mentioned in three other articles. It is not much, but Mr. Shiina's notability is still better if you compare it to Onalaska, Wisconsin-based dance teacher Misty Lown, whose article survived an AfD earlier this month.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that he is much more well known than Misty Lown and I have viewed her AFD here [8]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article is not an orphan doesn't make it notable. Comparing articles is not a valid way of determining notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Jakejr (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uou can say that but other stuffexists shows that we have an established level of what is considered to be notable and what isn't notable enough for an article. We have to have something that can serve as a base level. CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OSE doesn't apply here. A typical OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-way of reasoning is "There's an article on x, and this is JUST AS famous as that." My reasoning is nothing like that. My argument is "Article x passed an AfD without being deleted, and this is even somewhat MORE famous than that."

For example: if I create articles on my neighbours Tom, Dick and Larry, I cannot seriously argue that the "neighbour Tom"-article cannot be deleted because a "neighbour Dick"-article exists. However, if the "neighbour Tom"-article survives an AfD, it would be strange to say that the article on the slightly more famous "neighbour Dick" can be deleted, without taking into account that the neigbour Tom-article passed the deletion discussion. That would mean that the guidelines work different for each neighbour, and that cannot be right, Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Jeff! additionally WP:PRECEDENT show that we have a basis for keeping Shiina's article along with his strong olympic caliber teaching capabilities as well as independent article about him. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, OSE is to indicate that each article needs to stand on its own merits. You've used the very first argument that essay says not to use: "Keep. There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that." Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't just as famous, it is more famous and more notable. That article passed an AFD, and this one has far more in terms of notability than that article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I don't think he meets the notability standards listed for martial artists and I also don't think he quite meets the coverage requirements of WP:GNG, but I'm a new editor (but long time user) and am not that sure of the rules. I thought I'd try to test my knowledge at some contentious debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.214.113 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2015 (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.