Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akatombo


 * 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. Subject notability eventually demonstrated, closure at nominator's behest. (non-admin closure) O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  10:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Akatombo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: ''Does not say enough to indicate what is notable or characteristic about the song. No references.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: an online search through the potential sources indicated reveals only a passing mention of the song among other references to "the big-eared human spirit Akatombo". This topic is probably not even the primary meaning in English, and certainly far too few sources seem to exist to pass WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear keep. Maybe you guys could just do what I say on the article's talk page? Here it is: "References from Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B5%A4%E3%81%A8%E3%82%93%E3%81%BC_(%E7%AB%A5%E8%AC%A1) https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B4%85%E8%9C%BB%E8%9C%93_(%E7%AB%A5%E8%AC%A0) I ask that someone translate and transfer the references from those articles". Ethanbas (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Ethanbas (talk) 19:2f, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * maybe you as creator could do that yourself rather than ordering us to do it for you. The volunteers are not here to complete your lazy creations and unsourced stubs. Especially as you are paid for a lot of what you do here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not paid for this article, or any of the work I've done in the past few months. And I'm not ordering anyone to work on the article. And it's not a lazy creation, and it's not an unsourced stub. Ethanbas (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Japanese article (per Google Translate) suggests this is very popular in Japan. I can't do anything with the Japanese sources but have added two English language sources that I dug out. Mortee (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Popular' is not automatically notable. A raft of other language sources may be as unsuitable as the regular barrel-scraping for fleeting mentions we get her on en.Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true, and I can't evaluate the value of the sources directly, but between them and the English-language mentions I've seen, I'm convinced this is a worthwhile topic Mortee (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't the Japanese Wikipedia and having an article in another language Wikipedia is not a criterion for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. The first source added, Cultural History Of Postwar Japan, is a brief mention (one sentence) in a 186 page book. The second source is a self-published website, http://dragonflyandjapaneseculture.weebly.com/, not a reliable source. The article still fails GNG: it needs significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage in multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources exists in Japanese. Ethanbas (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say that having an article on another language Wikipedia warranted inclusion - that way nothing covered in two languages would ever be deleted. I meant that article seemed detailed and to have several references, which suggested our own article could be improved. That fits with WP:BEFORE B6 Mortee (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add two things: 1) I didn't say that the sources I'd added so far established notability in themselves; I think they together with the quality of the Japanese article do that. 2) The first reference you mentioned isn't one sentence. It's two sentences, including the claim that it's a "popular children's song", followed by some of the music (in musical notation) followed by credits for the lyrics and tune. Not exactly a dedicated thesis but not quite as trivial as your summary might suggest. Mortee (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually a third thing, with apologies for the spam. I said 'two sources' because that's what I'd added when I added the comment, but the second wasn't the Weebly site, it was a book about Chinese film. That's also a brief mention where the song is not the main theme, granted. I just wanted to make this clear. Mortee (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs help, including citing the claim made about the Schumann melody it supposedly resembles, but the song itself passes notability from having been listed by the Agency for Cultural Affairs and the Japan PTA National Council in 100 Songs of Japan, . -- Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative searches:
 * Japanese song title and composer:
 * Song title and composer:
 * Alt. song title and composer:
 * Alt. song title and composer:
 * Alt. song title and composer:


 * Keep, based on a review of available English/French/Spanish/Portuguese language sources, of which some have been referenced in the article,        the inclusion on the list of 100 Japanese songs widely beloved in Japan, from where I have linked to the article, the mention of a few of the arrangements of the song recorded by Western artists, and the existence of Japanese sources, this song easily meets WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor 16:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this can be safely kept now thanks to all the work by and  despite the fact that AfD is not AE or the WP:RESCUE. I will just point out that my listing at AfD was purely procedural. It was a two-line, unsourced stub at the time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Thanks for work from and adding sources, and to  for creating the article.  Beautiful article and melody!  --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2017 (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.