Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ami Yoshida

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Yoshida

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

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

The article meets neither WP:NMUSICIAN nor WP:GNG. A wp:before search yields no usable sources (with English and native name). ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ I found a few album reviews in english sources, including one in Pitchfork, which leads me to believe there's probably more I'm not finding, but with what I see I'm going to have to fall on the side of delete unless someone can find more to establish notability. 1 2 3 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the additional sources provided I'm now at Weak Keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adding the Stylus review and Squid's Ear review to the mix as well, I think that there is probably just enough out there to show that she meets at the least bare minimum level of notability. You could argue that she meets #7 of NMUSICIAN due to being a prominent representative of a very quirky style of music, in my opinion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pitchfork is one of the most prominent music publications in existence (the review is somewhat early in their run, but Pitchfork fairly regularly removes old reviews they don't endorse), and Stylus was well-known while ran and employed reputable music journalists. I am less familiar with All About Jazz but its page here suggests that it appears to be considered reliable in the jazz writing field. The reviews are unambiguously in-depth and non-trivial. Thus, it passes both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN criterion 1. There is also this retrospective piece (because I know someone will bring it up: one of those sites bankrolled by a brand, in this case Red Bull, but that releases actual longform music journalism that, in this case, is independent of the brand; the author, Clive Bell, is a journalist who specializes in Japanese jazz); it isn't significant coverage of the artist herself but does provide useful background of the scene she was involved in. (https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2014/10/off-site-improvised-music-from-japan). There also appears to be some academic coverage (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22ami+yoshida%22), and I suspect there is probably coverage in Japanese. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been identified in this discussion to show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2021 (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.