Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Ishima

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. Wizardman 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hideki Ishima[edit]

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

Search doesn't turn up significant coverage or content fulfilling criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Prod was declined with "there are lots of japanese language sources", but I don't see reliable sources on the Japanese Wiki and the statement doesn't absolve from providing reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you look for sources in the Japanese wikipedia rather than Google and what is wrong with the existing ones? If you dont find sources reliable, providing a reason is particularly helpful to steer things to a productive discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched via the Google News archive and nothing turned up - my browser must have worked incorrectly. Don't get artificially upset. - With "current ones" I hope you mean the ones provided here and not in the article. Those are bad. Hekerui (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no notability. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aisha9152 (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per articles in The Japan Times and Rolling Stone. I'm sure there are others as those were found after only a minute searching. He has also apparently invented a new instrument, the sitarla. A large chunk of the Japan Times article discusses this instrument. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- With the Rolling Stone mention I'd say this article is worth keeping. Rockgenre (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Japan Times and Rolling Stones coverage above is already enough to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per criterion 1. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Nihonjoe. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (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.