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.
Please be patient with this article. Kimura's career spans 2 decades and 3 continents; their (incomplete) archive at Artexte in Montreal is 4 inches thick. Their bibliography alone is half a dozen pages long. I am still learning to compose articles and wanted to start with a stub so that I could build on it more in the future. I chose to start with South China Morning Post because it is internationally recognized. I understand Kimura may not be notable to you but the 12 years they spent working in Korea is quite notable there. I do not speak or read Korean so I can't very well work with those publications. Please reserve your judgment while this article is being constructed. I welcome fair advice on how to improve the article to make it more rigorous. Thank you. Emma Oakley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify in draft or user sandbox space, without prejudice against restoration in the future if and when it's up to scratch. If the creator needs additional time to find solid sources, then she can certainly do that in draft form — but to be in articlespace today, it has to already meet notability and sourcing standards today, so it's not ready for prime time yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked through all the sources and made some improvements to the article. There are many poor ones which needed to be removed, but also some good ones including the Globe and Mail, and in the South China Post. I think they're enough to establish notability. This artist's work has received floor-to-ceiling galleries at the Hong Kong Fringe Club, an art museum in Kyoto, Japan. Here are examples of significant discussion. South China Morning Post has [1] and [2]. They get two paragraphs in the Globe and Mail [3]. A documentary they released last year is discussed in the McGill Tribune.[4] I think that might be almost enough to establish WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. According to WP:ARTIST, I think Lemoine passes due to "The person's work (or works)" has "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." Considering their art has never been shown in a place that speaks English, I think it's notable they've been written about so extensively in English sources. Given the coverage here where they have no notoriety, I believe there are certainly more articles about them in them native language/French/Japanese/Korean per WP:NEXIST ("Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article"). They also co-founded Global Overseas Adoptees' Link, and her work with that organization has been discussed in newspapers in South Korea multiple times, as cited in the article. In this article, it says "she's been profiled so often by the Korean media that many Koreans consider her the face of overseas adoption." Considering both their art and their activism, I think it's well established that this is a notable person. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A new article bursts from the editor's head, fully sourced and in compliance with the MOS The creator should be given the opportunity to work on the article. I don't think that deletion is a desirable outcome. Moving it to draft space is an option, but likely to result in fewer contributions from other editors. I think that the current sources, the South China Morning Post and The Globe and Mail are sufficient to establish that the subject is notable. There are many more sources available (not just in Korean). It's OK, even desirable, to develop an article in Mainspace once the minimal requirements for inclusion have been met, which I believe is the case now. Keep. Mduvekot (talk) 18:50, 26 March 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.
