Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenji Yamamoto (Composer/arranger)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenji Yamamoto (Composer/arranger)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

Not notable. Fails WP:COMPOSER. All sources listed in article are WP:SELFPUB. talk 02:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it decided whether or not a song is notable? I assumed since Kenji Yamamoto has composed or arranged such a large number of songs (most of which I haven't gotten around to translating from the Japanese Wikipedia page), he would be considered notable enough. I mean, Kenji Yamamoto (the Nintendo composer) has only 17 works on his page, while this Kenji Yamamoto can have about seven times that (if I add the rest of his work). Also, what does "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" mean? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While there might well be an issue of needing to cite better sources, we have a process of tagging articles for improvement rather than deleting them on sight. There is nothing to suggest that this person isn't notable, or that notability couldn't be demonstrated. These concerns are a prime case of content that can be fixed by editing, not requiring deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy and Linkdude: Wikipedia is very clear about its criteria for notability of composers.  If you can provide reliable, verifiable, independent sources about Kenji Yamamoto which prove that he has accomplished one of the six bullet points listed in WP:COMPOSER, then I will gladly withdraw my nomination for deletion.    talk 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:ATD, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
 * Yet again, you're too quick to call for deletion and fail to appreciate the possibility of any other actions to remedy the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy, your logic is horrifyingly misguided, and it's clear to me (from this AfD and others we've both been involved in) that you're an inclusionist who will stop at nothing to halt the deletion of any article. The only remedy to this article's problems are secondary sources which establish notability.  I haven't nominated this article for deletion because of the grammar of the article or any other problem that could be solved through regular editing, I nominated it because I believe the subject of the article does not pass Wikipedia's notability policies.  Understand now?     talk 13:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:26, 19 December 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.