Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Sakamoto

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. ✗plicit 23:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Sakamoto

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a music critic, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for journalists as they stand in 2021. This was fine by the standards of the time when it was created (2005), but in the past 15 years we've really adjusted and refined our thinking about what kind of sourcing helps to support notability and what kind does not -- and the references here are a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, a magazine article that briefly namechecks his existence as a giver of soundbite in the process of being fundamentally about something else, and an article in a defunct magazine that doesn't have any known public archive of past content to recover the source for verification of what it said (and even if we could recover it, getting him over GNG would still take more than just one GNG-worthy footnote). So the sourcing just isn't cutting it anymore, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well reasoned nomination of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per nominator. There's lots of quotes by him, or things quoted to him. His work is substantial and is correctly used as a reference within Wikipedia. However, there's nothing substantial I can find *about* him in independent, reliable sources. My only quibble with the nomination is regarding defunct magazines, but nom is also correct that one good source doesn't get us over the GNG hump. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 2 July 2021 (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.