Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan
Points of interest related to Japan on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Japan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Japan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Japan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
watch |
Scan for Japan-related AfDs Scan for Japan-related Prods |
See also:
Japan
- Arthur Fortant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs on the page for many years. It seems he was part of the French military mission to Japan (1867–1868), which seems like an interesting historical incident. However I'm not seeing much that can be described as substantial RS about this person. fr.wiki has more information but is equally bereft of sources. JMWt (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Japan, and France. JMWt (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can't read Japanese, but GoogleTranslate can, and the Japanese version is vastly better than either the English or French ones, and almost convinces me that this is a notable person who deserves an article. For the moment I'd go for delete, but it could perhaps be saved by an editor with knowledge of the incident and, ideally, Japanese. Athel cb (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, maybe. It appears from ja.wiki that there's a source:
- 鈴木明著、「追跡―一枚の幕末写真」、集英社(1984年)、ISBN 978-4087724929
- Even if that is substantially about this individual, it appears to only be a single source. JMWt (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to French military mission to Japan (1867–1868) as ATD unless decent sources are found. I csn5 fund much even in Japanese. Mccapra (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Famous News article in English Media House where it's covered Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not eligible,this article not have news coverage Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have !voted for both !keep and !delete. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I decided to do a source search for this film out of curiosity, as I'm interested in trying to improve another Mewtwo-centric film, Mewtwo Strikes Back, in the future. There is very little in the way of coverage. Outside of watch guides, the only sources are a single announcement from Comicbook.com about the film's manga adaptation (Which is mostly just a WP:ROUTINE news announcement), and a brief one paragraph summary in a book source. (It's self-published by a movie critic named Doug Pratt. Unsure of his reliability since Google gives me conflicting results for which Doug Pratt this is). There is also an IGN listicle that is primarily a plot synopsis, but technically has extremely sparse amounts of coverage. I'll link the three below so editors can make their own opinions:
https://www.ign.com/articles/best-pokemon-movies
This was all I could turn up. The current sources used in the article are a press release (Which is PRIMARY) and a book source, which, from what little I could get out of the preview, just seems to be a summary of Toho published films and nothing more, with no depth of significant coverage from what I can garner. This leaves this article with maybe two sources that are significant coverage, and it could be less depending on which Doug Pratt wrote that book. There is literally no coverage on this film that I can find beyond this. Given the lack of coverage, I don't believe this film meets the GNG due to a distinct lack of SIGCOV. A viable AtD for this film is to "List of Pokémon films," where this film is listed already. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, and Anime and manga. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: the links provided in the nomination are to 2 short reviews, so with the rest of the existing coverage, I think a page can be retained but if others disagree, redirect to List_of_Pokémon_films#Television_specials, and merge and add sources (indeed listed there). The film was adapted in a book series in 2019; https://natalie.mu/comic/news/334745 and, the same year, in a 3D remake https://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2140041/full/) Significant coverage: https://filmaga.filmarks.com/articles/2893/3/ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Mushy Yank Thank you for doing a double check through JP sources to see if I missed anything. To clarify, the 3D remake is for Pokémon: Mewtwo Strikes Back – Evolution, a remake of Pokémon: The First Movie, which are entirely separate films. I mentioned the manga announcement in my nom, but the JP source is basically the same in terms of info as the Comicbook source, and is similarly just covering the work's announcement, so I'm not sure it's very helpful for showing significant coverage, as this would also fall under ROUTINE.
- The significant coverage source (Filmaga) is primarily just a one paragraph synopsis. The source primarily focuses on Pokémon: The First Movie, and the paragraph on this film acts as part of a brief summary for other appearances of Mewtwo rather than acting as the main focus of the article, so I'm not sure if it falls under Wikipedia:SIGCOV at all, and even then it wouldn't help with Wikipedia:NOTPLOT, as it's mostly plot details and nothing more. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_Pokémon_films#Television_specials - None of the above sources are SIGCOV (including Filmaga, it's just a short paragraph) but Rotten Tomatoes lists reviews by film critic Christopher Null and DVD Talk. Unfortunately Null's review is a permanent dead link: [1], you can also see the review listed here: [2]. So that leaves only the DVD Talk review, which isn't enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pokémon: The First Movie as the closest thing to it. I am not convinced it passes GNG, even if the missing review were found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Mika1h, the article is mostly just plot with no WP:SIGCOV. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Wikipedia articles are WP:NOTPLOT, and this needs reception and analysis to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Naoya Seita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks like a WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT failure. In the Japanese Wikipedia, all sources are non-independent (published by the subject's employers) except for two dead at-s.com links. The claim to notability, playing 60 minutes in Japan's second league and 201 minutes in the third league, is extremely weak. Geschichte (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Japan. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Junya Higashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks like a WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT failure. In the Japanese Wikipedia, all sources are non-independent (published by the subject's employers). The claim to notability, playing 113 minutes in Japan's first league and 18 matches in the third league, is weak. Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Japan. – The Grid (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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 delete. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Shinya Tokuni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Massively fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Was rightfully prodded only 5 minutes after it was created, but now it's time to end it once and for all. There is no claim to notability whatsoever, and if anything, the speedy deletion criteria should be amended to include cases like this. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia is also unsourced. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 12:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- Kyohei Suzaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rightfully prodded by User:Spiderone back in 2009. The claim to notability, playing 6 games in Japan's second league and 1 cup game, is very weak. The sources (including those found in ja:wiki) are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Kentaro Nakata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Strong failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and only 2 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly fails GNG. I did find this blog post but it's clearly not WP:RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Good Day (BoyNextDoor song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG... b-side song, didn't chart, no significant coverage in independent sources (all the news coverage references seem to be just regurgitated press releases from the group's agency saying the song exists).
Some of the article's content could maybe be salvaged and put into a newly-created article about the song's parent maxi-single (along with information on the other 3 songs, maybe?) but as it stands it doesn't fit the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Earth, Wind & Fire (song) § Japanese version per nom. Nothing came up for my search Mach61 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)- Keep: here's are the reasons!
- Recent Release and Reception: "Good Day" is the first original Japanese-language song by BoyNextDoor, released on July 10, 2024, as part of their maxi single "And," which also includes Japanese re-recordings of previous hits. This context showcases its importance in the group's discography and the expanding international reach of K-pop.
- Cultural Impact: The song, characterized as a hip-hop track, deals with themes of self-empowerment and enjoying solitude after a breakup. This relatable subject matter can resonate with a wide audience, enhancing its cultural relevance.
- Industry Recognition: BoyNextDoor has already gained significant recognition in the K-pop industry, including awards such as the Global Rising Artist at the 2023 Melon Music Awards. This success indicates a strong fanbase and establishes their credibility as a notable act.
- Source Citations: Provide citations from reputable K-pop news sites like Allkpop, Kpopping, and Kpoppie that cover the song's release and significance. These sources validate the content and add weight to the article's claims about the song's impact and the group's activities. ( https://www.allkpop.com/video/2024/08/boynextdoor-reveal-special-mv-for-good-day-b-side-track ), (https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10), (https://kpoppie.com/boynextdoor-members-profiles/)
OTHER LINKS:
https://www.allkpop.com
https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10
https://kpoppie.com
- WikiNicExplorer 7:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Alright so: none of these reasons assert how the song meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.
Point #2 doesn't describe any actual cultural impact, point #3 is discussing the notability of the band, not the song. Nobody is questioning the notability of the band, and point #4 is moot as none of those sources are reliable sources, and, in fact, most of them are specifically noted as unreliable sources at WP:KO/RS#UR.
Thanks RachelTensions (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)- I have no idea why WP:Convenient Discussions is attributing the above keep vote to me, tried to fix it but anyway.. if anyone is confused it was made by WikiNicExplorer, not me. RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Alright so: none of these reasons assert how the song meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.
- Kaoli Isshiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
- [3] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
- [4] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
- [5] recital
- [6] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Source | Significant? | Independent? | Reliable? | Secondary? | Pass/Fail | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Le Monde | Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Anaclase.com review | Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
recital at prod-s.com | The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
recording | Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de | Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Ensemble William Byrd | Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com | Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Review at musica-dei-donum.org | Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Philharmonie de Paris | Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
BBC Proms | Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Voce.de | Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Brusseks Philharmonic | Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Res Musica review | This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/ | This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
musicweb-international.com | This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
French Anthologies | This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
www.recordsinternational.com | This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV. | |||||
Total qualifying sources | 0 | There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
|
- I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.
- Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.
- I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories
- Add categories here using the {{cl|CATEGORY}} template
Images
- Add images here using the [[:File:FILENAME]] semicolon to start the link
Templates
- Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template
Redirects
- Add redirects here using the {{no redirect|REDIRECT}} template
Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
- Yamadera Nobuaki (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)