Deletion of Ami Yoshida

Comment: as enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been identified in this discussion to show a pass of  so that deletion is unnecessary in my view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Pitchfork is one of the most prominent music publications in existence (the review is somewhat early in their run, but Pitchfork fairly regularly removes old reviews they don't endorse), and Stylus was well-known while ran and employed reputable music journalists. I am less familiar with All About Jazz but its page here suggests that it appears to be considered reliable in the jazz writing field. The reviews are unambiguously in-depth and non-trivial. Thus, it passes both  and  criterion 1. There is also this retrospective piece (because I know someone will bring it up: one of those sites bankrolled by a brand, in this case Red Bull, but that releases actual longform music journalism that, in this case, is independent of the brand; the author, Clive Bell, is a journalist who specializes in Japanese jazz); it isn't significant coverage of the artist herself but does provide useful background of the scene she was involved in. (https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2014/10/off-site-improvised-music-from-japan). There also appears to be some academic coverage (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22ami+yoshida%22), and I suspect there is probably coverage in Japanese
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MUSICIAN)