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. Hut 8.5 21:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Tazawa[edit]

Erika Tazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substance at all to suggest the independent notability and my searches are not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a minor competition (takes place in church halls apparently), and there is no coverage of the competition from major sources or institutions as far as I can see from Googling. It does not imo contribute to making the article subject notable and I would be in favour of delete.--Smerus (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my comment above to a definite delete. Nothing has emerged which indicates that the subject passes either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there probably is some COI editing going on, but that isn't a consideration in the decision to delete an article if the subject is notable, unless the article is such a blatant advert that it would need to be completely rewritten, which is not the case here. The primary problem is there is no evidence that subject meets the inclusion critera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't implying a direct influence (otherwise I wouldn't have started a separate topic on a noticeboard), but I can, for instance, see a potentially COI editor being invited to this AfD (as it happens the same editor who successfully counteracted the deletion of another article of the same pool of connected articles – as it happens a biography of one of the composers of Tazawa's CD) – In the case such editor would cast a !vote here, it would make a difference, when assessing the weight of that opinion, whether there is a COI or not. So, for this AfD, just a heads up for what may result from the COIN thread. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, possibly there is a fourth editor in the pool: this editor created an article on yet another composer of Tazawa's CD, but that article has since been deleted (see User talk:Contemporarymuslover#Proposed deletion of Francesco di fiore). Lacking the edit history of the deleted article I wasn't sure whether to add them to the COIN thread (and finally didn't because they have only one remaining edit). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)
  • Comment: "Plan"
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll "subst:" the template content to the AfD pages in order to avoid creating AfD confusion. Can we keep the centralised discussion on this idea at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman#William Susman here then (no need to do the same discussion over in the different places)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Susman seems likely to survive its AfD: the "Plan" above (resucitate Belarca Records as a separate article) might still be applied, in which case Erika Tazawa might be converted into a redirect to that article. I'm not sure myself whether that would be a good idea, but I suppose here is the place to discuss such ideas right now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Take it to the Belarca AfD or Belarca talk if it's about the Belarca article. We never "centralize" discussion on AfDs, because once the AfD closes, that's it. MSJapan (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.