Talk:Sachiyo Ito

Difference of opinion between new page reviewers

I've had this draft on my watchlist since a Teahouse query last October and I made some minor edits to it then. So I noticed yesterday that Ipigott had accepted it into mainspace. I was therefore a bit surprised to see that it had been re-draftified by Scope creep later the same day. Both of these editors are experienced new-article reviewers, so I'm a bit puzzled and feel they should comment. My own view is that the newspaper reviews starting in 1974 and extending to 2021 amply meet WP:GNG. The article is otherwise in line with guidelines for WP:BLP, with inline citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mike Turnbull: The career section is an absolute mess and doesn't confirm to WP norms. It needs to completely rewritten. It is written as a bio profile in a paper encylopedia is which is simply not done on Wikipedia. There is also pieces which are major life events which are unsourced. Numerous articles have been written about her. So what. Why are they not incorporated as references. They should be either external links or references.You don't list articles written about somebody in that manner. All in all, the article needs about 20 hours of work to rewrite correct to standard. I know what a WP:BLP articles looks like and its not that. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

scope creep: These are certainly not reasons for dratifying the article which meets basic notability requirements. The COI issue has also been resolved on the talk page. Any necessary improvements can be made in mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ipigott: How goes it? Notability is not the point here, although I do think she is notable. The core of it is pushing unsuitable articles to mainspace when they are not ready. That is what Afc is for. It wouldn't have passed Afc in that state and it won't get fixed in mainspace. Articles with this type of formatting problem rarely do as it needs a complete rewrite, in the two main sections. It should be stubified removing the career section which is the most onerous, remove the list of publications and use them as references, fix the spelling mistakes and copyedit it. That would provide a stub which can grow organically. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

scope creep: Thanks for expressing your views on this but I'm afraid there appears to be a lack of understanding of the basic requirements for the acceptance of biographical articles. Even an article which has not been developed with supporting references should not be removed from mainspace if the person it covers is notable on the basis of what can be found in reliable independent sources. From here, for a start, you can see she has been covered in some detail by the New York Times. That's the kind of supporting coverage we need for including an article in mainspace. The Ito article was created by a completely new editor, even if she was an associate of Ito. It must be extremely frustrating to have such extensive work refused time and time again. AfC generally does a good job refusing to promote articles about insignificant people but Ito is not insignificant and should not be refused. I never revert anything myself as I try to avoid edit warring at all costs. So if the article is to be moved back to mainspace it will be up to you or other contributors. By the way, I see you have recently created a few articles on women including Marianne Grant (still to be expanded) and impressively detailed biographies of Käte Voelkner and Élisa Mercœur. If you intend to continue along these lines, you might like to become a member of WP Women in Red and help us to reduce the gender gap. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm already a member of WP:WIR and have been for years. I'm nothing to do with significance; I've already stated its notable. The whole point of the AFC/NPP process is to improve the qualitys of articles. It is a complete mess and needs rewritten from scratch to follow standard layout and flow. Trying to mainspace something to improve on a metric when its not suitable, is not the way to do it and is anti best-practice. I see it will likely be me that will WP:STUBIFY it when its mainspaced, just to prove the point, "oh its notable, it must be in mainspace", even thought is mess.

scope creep My sincere apologies on WiR membership. I checked your user page and found there was no WiR tag. Looking back, I see you joined after I had raised a minor problem with non-diffusing categories on 1 November 2019. My attention to Ito actually came from a post on WiR talk by Thriley whose suggestions are usually worthwhile. On checking the draft, I saw it was one of those that had narrowly escaped deletion as it had not been edited for almost six months. If no one does anything about it, it now risks being deleted once again in six months time. I don't know how carefully you monitor the draft deletions but unfortunately there are quite a number from AfC which meet notability requirements but are nevertheless deleted if their creators are discouraged and carry out no further improvements. I'm perfectly willing to offer general support to AfC but if I promote articles to mainspace, I do not expect them to be summarily deleted. In this case you went ahead without attempting to re-open a discussion, either on the article's own talk page or on mine. Now that Michael D. Turnbull has started a discussion here, it will be interesting to see what other reactions come in. I hope you will not take offense at these comments. I can see you are interested in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles but we must take care that articles on notable individuals are not simply refused until they are removed.--Ipigott (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That is fine. If you move it to mainspace, can you try and clean it up, fix the spelling mistakes and do a copyedit and remove those publication. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, scope creep, I never revert. I now leave it up to you or other contributors to promote the article.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand - why don't you think this would get through AFC? The only things we're supposed to decline for are listed here: [1]. WP:AFCSTANDARDS specifically says not to decline for formatting reasons. -- asilvering (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. This article has a somewhat storied past, having been declined a number of times (the history's been lost somewhere) and having benefited from only minimal improvements as a result. While there are a number of performance reviews, particularly from the New York Times, they are often brief and/or incidental to the subject (a review of a performance that Ito choreographed does not on Ito notability confer) - and other references are frequently sketchy (the St. Louis Post-Dispatch piece is literally a single line that reads, "Artistry and beautiful costumes build a bridge between cultures." - hardly "non-trivial" and I do wonder about clear notability here. Would it survive AfD? Possibly, IMHO, but I'd say it would have a fight on its hands - for instance, I see scant evidence here for a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. As for Scope Creep's concerns regarding the overall state of the thing, I totally agree. It's a hot mess and needs to be rewritten from the ground up. It's not about formatting or citation style, it's about the entire thing - purpose, content, the lot. Right now, it's little more than a CV. In short, it's not by any means a clear call and I while I was surprised to see it in mainspace, to be honest, I don't think I'd have re-draftified it. However, now that we're back here, I'd certainly counsel a stiff cleanup before it's resubmitted through AfC... But would be happy to review it the very second it is! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The above now clearly somewhat redundant... Possibly even relevant again! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This article was just brought to my attention. I don't have time to work on this article right now, but having written many articles on dance (but not in Japanese dance), this is what I'll do, or suggest someone to do: 1. Place the "Sachiyo Ito and Company" section as a subsection of the career section. 2. Remove the last paragraph of the career section, as it's just mostly a list of venues and lack sources. 3. Shortened all the lists of locations. Just say "throughout the United States", and on international appearances, list either the countries or the continents. 4. Rearrange the career section to be mostly chronological. 5. Completely remove the reception section. But if you really want to keep it, take a few quotes from the reviews that highlights the style of her dancing and choreography, and/or her achievements and importance. But definitely remove the list of reviews. 6. Remove the puffery and copyedit the entire article. 7. If possible, add a (partial) list of her works. Corachow (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems to make sense! I'd have just gone ahead and done it, TBH! It does need a lot of work and if someone's happy to put the hours in and if the subject is indeed notable (one of the major concerns highlighted above), it can be reviewed and accepted quickly. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

AfC acceptance

I'm satisfied that notability is met, according to at least one guideline, which is the essential test at AfC (per WP:AFCPURPOSE). COI has been disclosed. I find no copyvios or BLP problems (apart from the unref'd DOB, which I'll edit out). Accepting this now – if anyone has an issue with that, take this to AfD (no need to ping me). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (September 2023)

Please see User talk:JoyIto405 § Managing a conflict of interest where it has proved impossible to determine whether this is simple COI or an autobiography, or even a shared account 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent See tag at top of this Talk Page. Based on a Teahouse thread from 2022, User:JoyIto405 has at various times contributed the draft as her autobiography, or possibly that account has been used by an associate. While that is not against policy, it has delayed acceptance of the draft when, for example, User:Corachow took the trouble of cleaning it up only to have superfluous material re-added. I hope that JoyIto405 (and any others with a WP:COI) will now confine themselves to making {{COI edit request}}s from now on. I think that a block of the account in question would be pointless, since it has only ever been used to edit this article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I agree that the history has been both complex and perplexing. What is important is that this is documented, as has been done with your message that I am responding to, and with the connected contributor template.

It is by no means certain that the article will pass a putative AFD, of course. DoubleGrazing was aware of that prior to their acceptance. They and I discussed it briefly at WT:AFC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)