Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanon Wakeshima


 * 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanon Wakeshima

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable singer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Just debuted this year with two minor songs in an anime series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Most of article is unsourced or from promo sites. CSD person removed by self-proclaimed fan whose user page notes that he is "in love" with her, but as he is not the article creator, did not restore. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

*Keep - she is signed by a major label, which has set release dates for 2 of her albums (see this and this). I believe this is enough to satisfy the spirit of WP:Music. Óðinn (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...that is the same album. Same tracks and everything, which fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Yes, indeed. Changing to delete. Óðinn (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep With the combined fulfillment of WP:Music criteria #10, almost-fulfillment of #5, and her small roll in Vampire Knight, I think she is notable enough. The cited sources are pretty bad, though. If necessary, the article should just be redirected to Vampire Knight so that if she becomes more notable in the future the article can be more easily revived. Theymos (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Until either her second album is out or she charts, her only claim to notability evidenced is based on WP:MUSIC #10, and that guideline suggests that if this is the only claim, then mention in the show's article suffices. If the first album was actually out, I might say keep anyway, but instead redirect to Vampire Knight without prejudice against recreation if she ever meets another criterion of WP:MUSIC. Kind of a shame, as a good job has been done writing a basic start-class article with info beyond the singles/albums; maybe the text can be userfied to save it? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to keep on the good-faith assumption that the anon IP's claim that she charted can be sourced (through the Oricon website if nothing else). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: insufficient notability, as per WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; has only sung the endings to VK, not enough notability. モー モー ?talk to moo 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Why delete instead of redirect per the recommendation of WP:MUSIC? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP I draw your attention to criteria #2 of WP:MUSICBIO. She has landed a charted position on a national chart (#22 w/ her first single Still Doll on the Oricon daily), and therefore is a notable artist.  She must only meet one item for her to be included as a notable artist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.241.44 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And your source for this is? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While not exactly a reliable source, http://tsukihami.blogspot.com/2008/07/single-kanon-wakeshima-still-doll.html seems to lend some credence. I have no idea how to look up old Oricon charts, but this link would seem to indicate that doing so would not be a waste of effort. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Fg2 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (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.