Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumi Kanda


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Megumi Kanda

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete as a non-notable trombone player. JBsupreme ( talk ) 08:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am finding coverage in a number of reliable sources that seem to indicate she meets notability. This American Record Guide entry from 2005 discusses her style; she is mentioned in this book on trumpet technique and this one about classical music as a profession. She returns a lot of Google News hits, including this extended profile in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; though much of her other coverage comes from the same paper, she has also been profiled by several others: the Albuquerque Journal here, the Rockford Register Star, and the Daily Gazette of Schenectady here. This introduction as a "Midwest treasure" by the Japanese Consul General in Chicago, from a performance by her that he arranged there, also to me indicate prominence.
 * I don't think it's open-and-shut: the book references are brief, and the newspapers are regional rather than national - I am not from the US and don't know how much weight to ascribe to regional publications. But there's a volume and breadth of reliable source coverage here that for me indicates notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP' Good net coverage on many things plus .... and a CD which seems to be purchased by a lot of people - Amazing Grace CD, and there's more if you care to look. (Milestokilo (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep ... just because some individuals have not heard of her that is not a reason to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2010
 * 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.