Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything Visible Is Empty

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 Merge and redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Visible Is Empty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable experimental short film. Article created by an editor whose work-product appears to almost entirely have been either deleted for various reasons, including copyright violations and non-notability, or refunded and turned into drafts that have gone nowhere. Quis separabit? 20:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cannot say I like how the editor created these articles, but s/he has been trying to create articles on experimental film, a grossly unrepresented area on Wikipedia. I noticed the editor created a few articles on some of Toshio Matsumoto's shorts. Matsumoto is arguably the most famous of Japanese experimental filmmakers, with retrospectives around the world ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.). He is without a doubt notable, as are many of his films, particularly Funeral Parade of Roses, which was his feature debut. Among his shorts, The Weavers of Nishijin is probably the most famous (there is even an entire article on that one short film: [7]). One would have to consider each film on its merits, but I would argue that Everything Visible Is Empty is among his more notable shorts. The title was used for a title of a significant Matsumoto retrospective in Hong Kong, and reviews of that discuss the film prominently: [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. The film is also featured on the Museum of Modern Art online introduction to Japanese experimental film: [12]. (I'm not sure if that satisfies no. 4 of WP:NFO, but both the MoMA and the National Film Archive of Japan databases don't show their entire collection.) One could also note the participation in the film of Toshi Ichiyanagi, one of Japan's most important modern composers. It is harder to prove notability for minor genres like experimental film, but there is surprisingly a good amount on this film—and I haven't even started searching Japanese print sources. Michitaro (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons given above by Michitaro. Notable enough for its size, I would say. Hoverfish Talk 15:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not against Redirect or Merge and redirect as alternative to a stand-alone article: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) particularly "Other evidence of notability" as well as failing WP:GNG. The sole reference (after removing IMDb) gives nothing on the film. A review of the listed sources: 1)- The Short Films of Toshio Matsumoto advertises a pay event that took place Jun 14 - Jun 18, 2017 and one paragraph for "Everything Visible Is Empty". 2)- Harvard Film Archive gives only the words "Everything Visible Is Empty (Shiki soku ze ku) Japan 1975, 16mm, color, 8 min." 3)- Wexner Center For the Arts, gives no mention of the film. 4)-Toshio Matsumoto: A Retrospective, gives no mention of the film. 5)- Liberation: Toshito Matsumoto, signed Halls, gives no mention of the subject film. 6)- Memorial Toshio Matsumoto (1932-2017) Seeking anti-realistic, fantastic and magical expression of images, six films and the subject is not mentioned. 7)-Oxford Handbooks Online: Reading Nishijin (1961) as Cinematic Memory, has nothing on the subject film. 8)- Art Review: Taro Nettleton reexamines the prolific and groundbreaking work of the late Japanese artist and filmmaker, about Toshio Matsumoto and not the subject film. 9)- Mousse Magazine Review: Everything Visible Is Empty: Toshio Matsumoto, provided above. This is the first evidence that points towards notability. 10)- ArtAsiaPacific (Journal Article, Review (nonbook): Toshio Matsumoto: Everything visible is empty, behind a paywall but may give some notability. 11)- Artomity: Review has nothing on the subject. Otr500 (talk)
• Conclusion: Of all the sources refbombed on this page only two give any form of advancement of notability. This '8 minute short film" should be in the Toshio Matsumoto article because there is not enough notability for a stand-alone article. The "Inclusionary criteria" gives three additional criteria and #2 states: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." The contents of this article only needs to have composer Toshi Ichiyanagi added to the Toshio Matsumoto article and there will be no duplicity. Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 appears to have been confused by my statements. Far from refbombing (a charge I find rather unnecessary if not uncivil), I was citing references to make three points: 1) confirming Matsumoto is notable, something many reading this might not be aware of; 2) confirming some of his short films are notable; and 3) advancing the argument this short film is notable. The retros I cited for Matsumoto were not all intended to serve as an argument for this film, thus many of the Otr500s evaluations of those are rather pointless. Some of the retrospective references, however, do have sections on the film. For these and other citations, I might remind Otr500 that WP:GNG states that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, which means that an argument such as "about Toshio Matsumoto and not the subject film" is not sufficient to discount the reference. As I said, I believe there are enough references on the net in English to argue notability, and can add a couple more, including a detailed one by film professor Markus Nornes (a full article about the film: [13]), and some others from the net and Google Books ([14], [15], [16], etc.). As I also said. I have not even begun to search for Japanese print references, because they would require a trip to the library. But just working from what I have on my shelf, the recent catalog to the Eizō no hakken: Matsumoto Toshio no sekai retro at Image Forum selected the film as one of Matsumoto's most important works and has an article on the film written written by Nakajō Shūhei (ja:中条省平).Michitaro (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering that my "evaluations of those are rather pointless" (the ones cited for Matsumoto) is certainly pointless. I didn't know anything about "you", before I started looking at all the references that you presented, but called a spade a spade. Notability is not inherited and I didn't see anyone yet arguing the notability of Matsumoto so plastering a lot of references not related to the subject of the AFD actually proves what point? The "short film" is 8 minutes including the opening and closing credits and is mostly presented with Matsumoto or with his other films. The source listed as #13 gives a multitude of other reviews and The Hand that Wrote Everything Visible Is Empty: The Traces Left by Matsumoto Toshio is on page 28-30. I agree with professor Nornes that the film inspires a kind of synesthesia. Who knows! This might have been the inspiration for the Dennō Senshi Porygon more commonly referred to as the "Electric Soldier Porygon". This source gives more for advancing notability than the others, especially the listed #16, that just highlights the name Matsumoto. After a BS explanation defending all the bogus sources more are added? I can't help it if you list them and someone actually looks at the 16 sources. I might remind the esteemed scholar Michitaro that retrospective references, mentioning along with other films, or attached to the creator of the films, while alright for content, does not advance independent notability and I still think there is just not enough to have a stand-alone article. Otr500 (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. Not enough by way of either reliable sources or information for a standalone page.--J04n(talk page) 19:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. A Google search uncovers a retrospective with the same name, during which the film showed,[[17]][[18]] but beyond a series of blogs and film viewing sites, there's insufficient media coverage or literary coverage to suggest this is worthy of a standalone article. This source [[19]] is a blog, but does refer to the film as famous; hence I'm voting merge rather than a delete. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. Insufficient sources to pass WP:NFILM. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2018 (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.