Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Kuwata

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. I note that this has been relisted several times already so we need to close the discussion conclusively. Personally I find the nominator's rationale and rebuffs compelling, but there just isn't a strong enough consensus in this discussion to warrant deletion at this time. WaggersTALK 14:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kuwata

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Matt Kuwata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now this is, I promise, an interesting one. Refbombed with fully 28 references, this article is of a Japanese media personality, model, and musician. The references are mostly in Japanese. Translated, they often namecheck the subject as the son of his famous baseball player father Masumi. They are almost all trivial to an almost exquisite degree. The subject's main claim to fame and notability seems to boil down to the fact that he looks, well, odd. As a media personality, model and musician he appears overwhelmingly trivial. He has appeared in some TV commercials, a web campaign for insect repellent and as a beauty ambassador for AvanTime Tone Shot Cream. With 28 references, it's almost impossible that someone won't argue that he passes WP:GNG. And yet they all amount to absolutely no substance and, as far as I can see, no evidence of notability - typical is 'news' pieces noting an Instagram post where Kuwata thanks his brother or father for their birthday greetings. Does 28 pieces of bellybutton fluff equate to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent"??? You tell me... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your quick look is too quick. All of those Oricon "articles" are brief publicity announcements that repeat social media posts. Via Google Translate, there is one that announces a change to his Instagram in which he commented on that day's makeup (2022-06-16), one announcing that he will appear at an online event in which he will discuss makeup (2022-03-24), one about what makeup he was wearing when he appeared onstage at an event (2022-02-21) blah blah blah. Not even close to Wikipedia's standards for
significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have time to add it right now, but I just searched for updates and found he recently did a feature for Vogue Japan as well, and also is launching a makeup line which was covered in reputable media. None of it is about SNS or his family, or simply "looking odd". I will continue to improve the article as time permits; please give it a chance. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has significant coverage of himself, not his father, for example in English: [1], [2], [3] covering his doll-like / mannequin-like modelling. There are significantly more sources in Japanese asw well as other languages. Fulmard (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of sources mentioned in later comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm certain I've never before used the reason for my assertion as "per nom" but in this case the nominator has made a compelling case regarding source analysis. The subject is a mildly successful self-promoter. No claim of significance or importance. Nothing significant in presented sources which directly details. I find no fault with the assertions User:Alexandermcnabb makes above, except this: In my AfD experience, I have often seen "28 pieces of bellybutton fluff" misconstrued as cumulatively meeting a threshold of GNG. I can't see any reason this subject will mature into notability, but occasionally Wikipedia gives popular culture a bizarre pass. BusterD (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why you feel that full-length features in GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar (which are not about his father or SNS activity) are "bellybutton fluff". Some of the references might not be great, but others such as those are pretty significant.Londonbeat41692 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Page creator User:Londonbeat41692's "...full-length features in GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar..." simply don't exist. 1) These are not full length features; they are interviews, photoshoots and YouTube videos, none of which establish notability. 2) The subject aspires to be a model. Appearing in such material is literally his job. He doesn't appear to be notable among Japanese fashion models, much less models getting full-length features in "GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar". 3) He seems to have gathered no cultural resonance in the English-speaking world up to this point. He seems to be a minor popular culture figure weakly covered by Japanese media primarily because of his father and his physical appearance, based on presented and found sources. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted above, but would like to emphasize the point that appearing in a major magazine as a model is not the same as having a
significant article that is about that model. The second of those is required for notability in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, some of the "keep" voters have dug up more sources, but they continue to be puff pieces and softball interviews from outlets that merely forward a publicist's promo announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The articles in the magazines I mentioned are about the model. Please look at the references again. They are not simply photos in which he appears, although those were taken for the magazine articles in question as well. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2022 (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/Matt_Kuwata&oldid=1105948835"