Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uchu Nippon Setagaya


 * 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 delete and redirect to Fishmans. There is a consensus to delete this, but the usual MO with albums is that they get redirected to the parent band article, so I have done that. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Uchu Nippon Setagaya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since the PROD tag was removed with a poor rational (basically WP:OSE), I brought it here. Besides one review, the album lacks substantial coverage and is sourced by user-generated websites and user reviews. Fails WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I found another review of the album and have included a good deal more content in the article to show that discussion of the album has happened by outside sources, and that the album is musically significant (especially as the Fishmans' final album). I would also like to argue that the WP:OSE argument that I invoked in my removal or the PROD tag is valid in this case (after all, the OSE page states that OSE arguments can be "valid or invalid"). The OSE page also states that:

"In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability"

In light of this, I would like to cite two other independent articles that are directly relevant to the deletion debate of Uchu Nippon Setagaya: King Master George and Neo Yankees' Holiday. These articles are for two of the Fishans' earlier albums, meaning that they are certainly "of the same nature" as the Uchu Nippon Setagaya article. Neither of these two other articles cite any sources other than a Rateyourmusic link. In fact, KMG and NYH are generally thought to be significantly lesser in quality and significance than Uchu Nippon Setagaya, and much less has been written about them. Indeed, I was not able to find a single credible review of either, other than the user reviews found on websites like Rateyourmusic. On the Uchu Nippon Setagaya article, I have found and cited two credible reviews of the album. It is my understanding that two independent sources non-trivially covering a topic is enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, since these other two albums are part of the very same discography as Uchu Nippon Setagaya, I would argue that they represent valid examples for the invocation of the "Other Stuff Exists" argument. Since they both have their own independent articles with far fewer sources (and words) than the Uchu Nippon Setagaya article (and are less significant than Uchu Nippon Setagaya both aesthetically and in terms of the number of independent sources that cover them), I urge you to allow Uchu Nippon Setagaya to stay.

Thank you for your consideration of this case. --FindingEllipsoids (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * which "independent" reviews are you talking about? I only see one that may be independent and reliable. The rest are user reviews and blogs, hardly significant coverage. Bringing up their other albums, which you claim are of lesser significance, is not a good argument. In fact, if they are less notable than this unnotable album they probably should be deleted too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the problem here is that Fishmans is a very obscure band here in the west, however, they are relatively popular in the Japanese underground scene along with a number of other influential Japanese artists that remain almost entirely unknown in the west, such as The Gerogerigegege, or slightly more well known, Boredoms, the ladder of whom you might be familiar with as a fan of psychedelic rock yourself. There are more than likely credible reviews for the record, but finding any from a real publication in English is quite a grueling task, which I know as a big fan of the band myself. Pzionic (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added more references. In particular, I have done some digging into Japanese sources, of which there were more than I anticipated. The album has definitely been covered by the Japanese media. Particularly credible is Onojima Daigaku's article (http://www.phileweb.com/review/article/201611/30/2320.html). This in conjunction with the David James review seems enough to merit an article. Additionally, "Magic Love," a song from the album, was used as the outro of a popular Japenese music show, Count Down TV. According to criterion #5 of Wikipedia's music recording notability guidelines ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings ), if a recording "was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show," it is likely considered notable. I have added a new section about popular culture references where I mention the fact that part of the album served as an ending theme of a TV show. This, in conjunction with the independent coverage I listed earlier, surely must be enough for the album to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I just want this article to stay. If there is something specific at this point that is missing that continues to make the article deletable, please let me know so that I can do digging in that area. Although the article is relatively obscure in the West, it is much less so in Japan. Japanese Wikipedia has had a freestanding article on the album since 2011 (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%87%E5%AE%99_%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC_%E4%B8%96%E7%94%B0%E8%B0%B7). For the love of obscure but important (and still credible) music, what more can/should I do to prove this album worthy of its own article? --FindingEllipsoids (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * here is how your rationale is still flawed: the Japanese source is an interview with a band member which is a primary source, not a secondary one. Using the appearance of "Magic Love" on a TV show is also flawed since we are not talking about the notability of an individual song but rather the album as a whole. The Japanese page on this album is also sparsely sourced so that does not strengthen your argument either.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - no indication of notability outside of a cult following in Japan, and there's not even much beyond a lede, short paragraph and a simple track list in the Japanese version of this article. It's also apparently unsourced. [] Somebody in Japan can look it up there. I also looked the album up on Amazon, where there are no reviews. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No amazon reviews of the album? Now, that is simply untrue.  Pzionic (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah-yes - I didn't think to check the Japanese Amazon. But that suggests the article is fine on the Japanese Wikipedia, just not here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  01:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  08:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  16:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM criterion #2. Snoozer (February 1998, page 21) placed it at number 18 on its list of the "50 Best Albums of the Year". I've also found another review written by 鹿野淳 at Rockin'on (August 1997, page 182). There seems to be more coverage at ROCKIN'ON JAPAN (August 1997) . In 2016, the album peaked at number 121 on the オリコンチャート chart . 153.164.172.173 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - This IP has made no other edits beside casting a vote. Regardless, their rationale is flawed since Snoozer is not a notable listing according to WP:NMUSIC and number 121 on the Orion charts is equivalent to "bubbling under" the Billboard charts.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - The source doesn't have to be necessarily notable. As stated at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, which is a part of WP:NMUSIC, the source just has to be reliable, not self-published, and independent of the band. At the very least, Snoozer, Rockin'on, and ROCKIN'ON JAPAN meet these conditions. Additionally, appearing on the オリコンチャート chart, which is the one listed on WP:GOODCHART, is equivalent to appearing on the Billboard 200 chart. WP:NALBUM criterion #2 is: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart". It doesn't matter whether if the album reached number 1 on the chart or number 200 on the chart. 153.205.43.69 (talk) (I'm the same as 153.164.172.173) 06:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that Oricon only goes up to 100 albums. Hence why I said it is the equivalent of "bubbling under" the Billboard charts, making it an point. IP can you log in to your account please? You clearly are not a new user.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, the オリコンチャート chart ranks the 300 most popular music albums in Japan, published weekly by Oricon . That's why I stated that appearing at number 121 on the chart is equivalent to appearing on, not "bubbling under", the Bilboard 200 chart. By the way, I feel greatly flattered to have been recognized as "not a new user", but I haven't created an account. 153.205.43.69 (talk) (I'm the same as 153.164.172.173) 07:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage to pass GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  11:48, 31 July 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.