Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Japan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Japan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Japan.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Japan-related AfDs

Scan for Japan-related Prods

Scan for Japan-related template TfDs

See also:



Japan

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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takuro Okuyama

Takuro Okuyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another really poorly sourced BLP on a footballer that only played 46 mins of football. Japanese Wikipedia has no decent sources. He is mentioned 3 times in this blog post and once in Reds Denk but this is far from enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable insignificant footballer without decent sourcing. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Yanagisawa

Kota Yanagisawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. The only half-decent source found is Livedoor, a blog post, which falls short of being WP:SIGCOV of Yanagisawa and, in any case, WP:SPORTBASIC and SIGCOV require multiple good sources for a pass. Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have any acceptable sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Tanaka (footballer)

Yasuhiro Tanaka (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 1 cup game then disappeared, although he was briefly on the books for Operário Ferroviário Esporte Clube. Searching in Japanese, I can only find Niigata University and J League, neither of which are significant. I couldn't find any coverage of his very brief spell in Brazil. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shotaro Dei

Shotaro Dei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in one 2nd tier match and then disappeared to the amateur levels. Searching in Japanese, I can only find a couple of self-published blog posts like La Bola and LiveDoor, which are not considered to be WP:RS. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoji Yamada

Shoji Yamada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 2 cup games then disappeared. Searching in Japanese, I can only find coverage of the musician of the same name. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CuteDolphin712 in fairness, Japanese Wikipedia articles for footballers tend to be of a very high quality in my experience so it tends to be a good indicator on whether the en.wiki article is worth having. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 13 May 2024 (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.
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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater)

Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hong Kong. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and Taiwan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches. JTtheOG (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insuffient coverage.--Wish for Good (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 24 May 2024 (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.
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 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takuya Kondoh

Takuya Kondoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a comment for Procedural Keep is not an argument to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, there is no corresponding article on ja.wiki. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:GNG 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (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.
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 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirokazu Kobayashi (figure skater)

Hirokazu Kobayashi (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was not able to find any sources that meet GNG. Fails WP:NSKATE. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. I'm categorically opposed to AfDs without a proper BEFORE, so I would argue for keep (while knowing this is not a !vote). While I also haven't done a extensive BEFORE search but was quickly able to find an interview with TV Tokyo [1] and a feature on him in J-Sport [2] in the Japanese article. DCsansei (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DCsansei is absolutely correct in demanding a proper review of potentially available sources before proceeding with a deletion nomination. However, the short window of time within which many similar nominations were submitted is most certainly not proof the required search was not made. I, for example, work as much as I find necessary to prepare a Wikipedia contribution. Sometimes, this involves multiple AfD's, and, when all are ready, I post them up in one go. -The Gnome (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 24 May 2024 (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.
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 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi Takahashi

Taichi Takahashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Japanese rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. This was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found, containing a handful of sentences of coverage, but no in-depth or sustained coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the interview provided, his Japanese Wikipedia, and googling his Japanese name (高橋汰地) there looks to be enough here for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the six sources in his Japanese article have any WP:SIGCOV. Feel free to present any new sources you found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Couple of lengthly profiles here and here. this, this and this all found just by googling his name. A more in depth search (perhaps by someone with better access to Japanese sourcing than myself as a lot is restricted here) will likely find more Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for presenting these. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one is from the JRFU (see the copyright at the bottom) and the second is by the same affiliate. The others just seem like routine reporting of press conferences without much independent contribution, especially the last one. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing seems restricted to routine coverage of press announcements and interviews rather than independent in-depth profiles. Not convinced the subject meets SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2024 (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.

Lotu Filipine

Lotu Filipine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Only one brief article exists [here https://www.looptonga.com/business/lotu-filipine-wins-500-cash-digicel-tonga-easter-promotion-91903], which is not enough. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article I linked to, is not even about his career and may not be him. Shinadamina (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a sexual harassment incident when he was captain of the Tonga under-21 team [3]. There should be more on this, but it would require digging in NewzText, which I don't have access to. IdiotSavant (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World Cup player and a simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing coverage. There is likely more coverage offline also from the time of his career and locations of his playing career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 merge‎ to Japan Karate Association. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masaaki Ueki

Masaaki Ueki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been on the list of articles not meeting WP:NBIO for 14 years. A bare number of sources (two) and no corresponding Japanese article strongly suggest he does not meet WP:GNG in addition to clearly failing WP:NSPORT. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't had a chance to do any sort of research so not ready to give an opinion yet. However, I am leaning keep simply on the basis that there's little reason to believe that OP did a WP:BEFORE search that included Japanese-language sources. If he had, he would have quickly run across the corresponding Japanese-language article which the nomination asserts does not exist. DCsansei (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OOPS! WP:TROUT moment for me here. I copied the name listed in the article, which (had a space) at the time. The article did not have a space, so I missed it and assumed there wasn't an article. I've struck that from the nom. Looking at that article, there's only one source and its WP:ABOUTSELF, so I think the nom is still good, at least. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I haven't been able to turn up much of anything here. It's odd given what's seemingly verifiable about his importance within Karate as head of Japan Karate Association but not much in the way of coverage of any of that. I don't want to !vote delete since I think the odds that there are sources offline in Japanese are very high but can't demonstrate that at this point. DCsansei (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Japan Karate Association which he is chief instructor of [4]. There likely is enough to write a biography of Ueki but I don't have access to Japanese newspaper archives (which are largely not digitized). Fwiw, likely that this book published by Kodansha by one of his contemporaries in JKA covers him. There is this coverage of his visit to New Zealand. Would not be opposed to keeping and happy to revisit if more is found. DCsansei (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Japan Karate Association There's no evidence given that there's significant independent coverage to justify an individual article, but he is mentioned three times in the JKA article. The individual article can be recreated if better references are found. Meanwhile, he's linked to the organization he's most closely associated with. Papaursa (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. There is a fundamental disagreement about whether any of the sources contain significant coverage of the film. Assuming arguendo that there is a consensus to not keep, there is no consensus as between deleting or merging as an ATD. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 (film)

1905 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The failure of the production received a lot of significant coverage from reliable independent media. A redirect to the article about the director should be considered anyway. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) (added 4 sources, there are more).[reply]
    You mean that it received the same one paragraph about the production being canceled because the company being bankrupt. All valid information on the non-exiting Prenom H article or as you say, a one line mention on Kiyoshi Kurosawa's page (which it already is). Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I understand your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge into the page for either Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Tony Leung Chiu-wai. It looks like there was a short flurry of coverage about the film and its cancellation, but I don't see where there's been any true long-term coverage about this. The best I could find was this, which only gave it kind of a brief mention. The thing with cancelled productions is that the guidelines is looking for quite a lot of coverage. Even the infamous Superman Lives wasn't deemed to be notable enough for its own article. I think this could be covered in a few sentences on either Kurosawa or Leung's articles at most. Perhaps an "impact" section at Senkaku Islands dispute, if doable? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A decent example of what an article about notable cancelled film would look like sources-wise would be Akira (planned film). That's a cancelled film that's been kicking around for decades and still gets some coverage now and again, despite it being in near permanent development hell. It also survived two AfDs, although I'll note that the last one was divided on whether or not it should have its own article. Something like this film, where there's more or less just a handful of coverage, just isn't enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG, NFILM, nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, keep votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. Ping me if sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added FOUR sources addressing the production and I am not sure how one could consider them unreliable nor insignificant.
  1. Japan Today in an article titled "Atsuko Maeda's film canceled after studio goes bust due to Senkaku dispute" stated, Shooting of the film "1905," starring former AKB48 member Atsuko Maeda has been canceled after its production and distribution company filed for bankruptcy, it has been revealed.The period movie was set to star Chinese actor Tony Leung Chiu Wai, 50, Japanese actor Shota Matsuda, 27, and Maeda, 21, who was making her first movie since she "graduated" from AKB48 last summer. It was to be directed by famed horror director Kiyoshi Kurosawa.According to a Sports Nippon report, movie production and distribution house Prenom-H Co filed for bankruptcy after shooting costs rocketed. The added costs were said to be incurred as a result of the Senkaku island dispute between Japan and China. The movie was a Japan-China joint production, with 90% of the movie's dialogue spoken in Chinese dialects.Credit research company Teikoku Databank Ltd said that Prenom-H Co has received authorization to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court. Prenom-H is believed to have liabilities amounting to around 643 million yen.The large-scale action production was centered around Yokohama in 1905. Filming was scheduled for both Japan and Taiwan and the movie was pencilled for release in Japan this fall.
  2. The Hollywood Reporter in an article whose subheading is "The Japanese shingle has filed for bankruptcy amid debt related to action film "1905," which actor Tony Leung pulled out of due to the territorial spat." wrote, Distributor Prenom-H began bankruptcy proceedings in the Tokyo District Court with debts of $7 million (643 million yen) on Feb. 21, following the problems with filmmaker Kiyoshi Kurosawa‘s 1905. The project ran into trouble after Hong Kong star Tony Leungpulled out of the production last September, at the height of the China-Japan row over the Senkaku-Diayou Islands.Leung had been criticized in China for appearing in the film, which was set in Yokohama, Japan, in the year of the title, but had been scheduled to shoot in Taiwan. Financing for the Japan-China co-production was also reportedly disrupted by the political tensions between the two countries, leaving the project in limbo.
  3. Variety in an article whose subheading is "Production delays on '1905' tips distrib over edge" wrote, Production difficulties on Japan-Hong Kong period actioner “1905,” which had been tipped for a major fest bow, has hastened the demise of its Japanese distrib Prenom H. The ongoing dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands, which touched off massive protests in China last year, has stalled the pic’s shoot, which started in November. Star Tony Leung has reportedly bailed on the project, pushing back the release and putting a crimp on financing. Starring Shota Matsuda and Atsuko Maeda, and helmed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the pic was set to bow in Japan in October, with Prenom H and Shochiku co-distribbing.
  4. The Guardian in an article about the effect of the Senkaku dispute on film wrote, The big budget Sino-Japanese co-production 1905 also appears to be another victim of the ongoing dispute over the islands. Starring Hong Kong's Tony Leung, and directed by Japan's Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the period action-drama was due to start filming in Taiwan in November but has now been postponed. Leung was due to play a loan shark who ventures from Guangdong province in China to Yokohama in Japan to recover debts from a band of anti-Manchu government revolutionaries.
Feel free to also open and read the existing sources on the page, and to check the other existing sources covering the production and its notable failure.
For example, a ONE-CLICK search gives, among other things:
  1. https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/tony-leung-and-j-horror-master-kiyoshi-kurosawa-team-for-upcoming-japanese-chinese-period-drama-1905-106255/
  2. https://news.yahoo.com/news/style/tony-leung-1905-indefinitely-161527817.html
  3. https://variety.com/2012/film/news/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-1118059020/
  4. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2012/09/10/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-hk-thesp-has-first-lead-role-in-a-japanese-pic/
Plenty of other articles about 1905 exist.
Oh, and of course, the "guideline to eval" should be WP:NFF ("Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.") and/or WP:GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), if that is really the issue in the keep vote(s) (there's only mine) mentioned in the one delete !vote above. .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film, none of the above as SIGCOV about the film, they are passing mentions of the film while addressing other subjects. SIGCOV requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject - the film. None of the sources above meets this requirement. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the titles of the articles or their subheadings, then read them, thank you. Stating that they are not "SIGCOV" and only contain "passing mentions" of the film is not accurate, I am sorry. The rest of your reply is contradictory, sorry again. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing ReaderofthePack's comment first, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Tony Leung, and Atsuko Maeda were all leadings figures in the film, so it is unreasonable to merge the article into any one of them while neglecting the others. The examples raised, Superman Lives and Akira (planned film), are not comparable in this case. Superman Lives was only in the early stages of development, not even with a confirmed leading cast. Akira is not exactly a cancelled film, but rather stuck in development hell and production waiting to resume due to Waititi's current commitments. A recent example with a more similar context that comes to my mind is Scoob! Holiday Haunt, which also underwent pre-production but was scrapped partially due to the production company's financial issues. Scoob! Holiday Haunt still has its article retained.
Addressing Timothy's claims, I was puzzled by your statement that "articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film" and calling the above sources "passing mentions of the film". I agree with Mushy Yank's skepticism about whether you have read the sources listed above. The Indiewire and Variety sources (published in 2012) announced the film's release and provided in-depth coverage of the plot, cast, crew, and development process. Meanwhile, The Japan Times, The Guardian, and Yahoo! News (Cinema Online) sources focused on the film sparking political controversies related to the Senkaku Islands dispute and Tony Leung being labeled a traitor by the Chinese. These five sources have nothing to do with the cancellation of the film, while they are all sufficient to establish the film's notability.
In addition to the subjects discussed, I have found numerous related Chinese and Japanese sources. There are sources with in-depth coverage of Tony Leung, Atsuko Maeda, and Shota Matsuda's characters (see Elle[5]). There are also sources covering pre-production, such as reporting on Kurosawa's site visit to Taiwan for film locations (See China Times[6]), on Maeda's preparation for her character (See Wen Wei Po[7]), and on Kurosawa's plan to continue filming despite Leung's departure (See Hong Kong Economic Times[8]). Regarding the film's legacy, there are recurring mentions even though it was cancelled. When Kurosawa's cross-border project Daguerrotype entered the Golden Horse Film Festival in 2016, he was asked about 1905 in interviews and expressed the possibility of continuing the film (see Sina[9] and Liberty Times[10]). Maeda also made comments on the project in 2016 and expressed interest in reprising her role (See Natalie[11]). The language of the sources should not affect its reliability, in fact, it may even be better than English sources in this case, as the film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production.
Let's review what we have at the moment. We have in-depth coverage of the film's early development, its announcement, pre-production details such as plot, filming plans, and character descriptions, political controversies related to the Senkaku dispute, the bankruptcy of the production company, the film's cancellation, and continuous subsequent mentions about the film's potential revival. Simply put, the sources listed above amount to a dozen, and there are more available on the internet. Therefore, I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF, as the film's pre-production has demonstrated significance and clearly fulfills WP:GNG already.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with @Mushy Yank and others who believe that the coverage is sufficient to pass the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see plenty of superficial coverage about the production difficulties, and exactly one sentence about the plot of the film. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as "significant coverage" of a movie. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: What are you even talking about? The twelve sources I quoted are absolutely UNRELATED to the production difficulties. All of them are either before the production enters controversies, or after the production was scrapped. The Elle source was also entirely about the characters' biography, and multiple sources covered the proposed plot. So I also do not understand which "exactly one sentence" about the plot you saw. I am not sure how you cast the vote without even bothering to click into the sources others provided in the discussion and ignoring the argument that has long proceeded from whether there are sufficient sources, but whether it fulfills WP:FFEXCEPTIONS, which has nothing to do with the reason why the film is scrapped or how much about the film details have SIGCOV in sources, but whether the pre-production or legacy demonstrated significance and has notability. The twelve sources I provided already have SIGCOV on these two aspects, so I still don't see a reasonable basis for deletion up until this point in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take an example: the China Times source you provided is about a different film - Daguerrotype, and only mentions 1905 in a side note: In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: What's the point of taking the one source with the least coverage to argue that all sources do not have SIGCOV? Yes, the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources are all not centered around the film. Because as I mentioned, this was to show how the film continuously demonstrated significance even after production was scrapped, and I have explicitly mentioned that some are from interviews of Kurosawa's other cross-border project Daguerrotype. It was to prove that the legacy of the film had significance, which settles WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. (I believe you are well aware that not all sources cited in an article must have significant coverage on the subject, and not all sources count toward notability. So I have zero clues why you chose the China Times source as "the one example" other than trying to pick the one with the least coverage to confuse others.) What you were claiming is that the sources only have passing mentions about "the production difficulties" and "the plot". Then you should focus on sources related to these topics. So what about the Indiewire source? The Variety source? The Chicago Tribune source? The Elle source? The Wen Wei Po source? Or the sources about other aspects of the film, like the political controversies in The Japan Times source, The Guardian source, and the Yahoo! News sources? Did none of them provide SIGCOV? And what about the ones that Mushy Yank listed out (the The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Japan Today sources)? It's sophistry to pick the one source with the least coverage and use that to argue that none of the sources have SIGCOV, while ignoring all the other sources that do demonstrate. Makes no sense to me at all. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but you claimed that all 12 sources provided significant coverage about the film. Did you not read the sources, or were you being dishonest? Owen× ☎ 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: You are just proving my point that your argument is sophistry. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV. An article with SIGCOV doesn't necessarily have to focus on the main topic of the article, it only means that as long as it is not a trivial mention and addresses the topic in detail. Let's put aside whether one of the three paragraphs in the article focusing on 1905 is considered trivial or significant, even though I personally don't consider it trivial. One, it is totally fine even if the article is from an interview of the director regarding another project. Two, I was mentioning that these twelve sources were all providing significant coverage on other aspects of the film, instead of just "production difficulties" or "the plot". That's why I was telling you that all of these twelve sources provided SIGCOV regarding two specific topics - pre-production and legacy. So of course you can only find little of what you were expecting there, because you were not addressing the right topics of the sources. Besides, you were neglecting the other aspects of the film which also demonstrate its notability that the sources provided SIGCOV on. You are being even more hypocritical by explicitly naming the one source with the least coverage (length/words) about the film, and trying to attack my statement on the sources providing SIGCOV, neglecting the fact that I clearly cited this to prove FFEXCEPTIONS. At this point, I think everyone reading this discussion can tell who is being dishonest and hypocritical, and who has a valid point. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, are you claiming that In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor is more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: This is ridiculously hilarious. Alternatively, I think I have already proven to you that your assertions were wrong with my previous reply. One, the China Times source does not just have a passing mention of the film, but has a whole paragraph about it. You tried to conceal this fact with your wrongful translation (see below), and I do not agree that one out of three paragraphs of an interview is considered trivial. (especially the film was already scrapped years ago and the interview was basing on another project) Two, there is nothing wrong with citing an interview of the director in another project according to SIGCOV, so your attempts to refute the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources simply because they are interviews of Daguerrotype were wrong. Three, SIGCOV only requires the sources to address the subject topic in detail. It doesn't cover what you expect, simply because you have put the focus elsewhere. I don't see any of the twelve sources I cited failing to cover the pre-production and legacy aspects with SIGCOV. I really don't understand where your confidence came from to continue accusing me of lying, when you seem to be the liar in this case, especially with the misleading translation you provided with the China Times source. Also, I was wondering what is my "amended statement", as I have been holding on to the same one all the time, which is that I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, although I can read Chinese, I used Google Translate to run the China Times source. There is a whole paragraph about 1905, which reads In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act." Which argument is actually misleading here? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prince of Erebor you've made your case, please allow others to weigh in and be mindful of Bludgeoning the discussion. Star Mississippi 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Star Mississippi: I was confused when you said I was bludgeoning, and I just realized there were sock puppets kept on closing the discussion. I have already stated that I will let the closing admin decide. (I was just editing some typos and bolding my arguments further, as I was dissatisfied with someone who was lying accusing me of lying instead in the discussion.) I did not bludgeon. (Not implying anything or anyone specific. But it is childish if someone is trying to accuse a veteran editor on zhwiki with ten thousand edits of sockpuppetry. A simple SPI can easily prove my innocence.) (Edit: Those sockpuppets seem to belong to User:Ivanvectra. I apologize if my previous comment offended anyone. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    to be clear, I know you're not a sockpuppet. You're an established editor and there's no reason for an SPI involving you. That's a bored troll disrupting AfD over the last week. The timing of the semi to stop from playing whack a sock was coincidental. Opinions may differ on bludgeoning, but I'm glad you'll leave it to a closing admin. Star Mississippi 13:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a section to Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Although other big names were attached to the production in acting capacities, the film was Kuosawa's project, and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to associate and list unrealized products with the director. Of course, nothing prevents it from being mentioned in other articles by reference to the section. BD2412 T 22:47, 24 May 2024 (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.
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 merge‎ to Fictosexuality. Owen× ☎ 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human-oriented sexualism

Human-oriented sexualism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COATRACK for fictosexuality, which is already itself a fringe topic with the article existing mainly as a massive advocacy page. In reality any sexuality peference that is directed at non-humans would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology, but these articles are built almost 100% without any actual clinical research, just opinion/"analysis" articles from dubious publications which seem intent on hijacking LGBT rethoric. The fictosexuality article may be fixed eventually with some work to reduce the obvious POV issues but I don't see how this article is anything but an undue weight spin-off. Both this an the main article have been created by the same editor, who very clearly seem to be a single purpose account which does nothing but link to these two articles and insert mentions of the subject in random pages.★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete
It's important to note that this article is a translation from Japanese, and there has been multiple research on this concept in Japanese, as indicated in the references. Academic research extends beyond clinical investigation to include philosophical or theoretical studies, which are not merely opinions.  Furthermore, the sources for this article include peer-reviewed sociological qualitative research.
Since this is an article about discrimination, it is not neutral to assume it is “hijacking LGBT rhetoric,” despite multiple academic studies available.
Underestimating the research accumulation from non-English speaking countries is Western-centric. While the article of fictosexuality may display bias toward East Asian activist discourse, I believe this article is valuable as an informative piece on Japan. Zuzz22 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is your second edit, the first being this fascinating edit to the article... ltbdl (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this idea does not have wide mainstream research in Japan either. It's a frine concept that has gotten some mentions as a curiosity. Using Japanese Wikipedia to push obscure sexual ideas had sadly become a trend recently. I've seen several attempts at translating bad Japanese Wikipedia articles into English for paraphilias because the obvious reality is that most English speaking editors do not read Japanese, so as long as the source look good and the langauge seems academic most editors leave it. It's an attempt at trickery.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe very limited merge?). This is claimed to be a term originating in the Japanese academic field of "fictosexuality studies". Oh dear. That seems to be a red link... Do we have any reason to believe that such a field even exists? So what about the term itself? I don't speak Japanese but Google Translate renders the Japanese article in a way that is shorter and more coherent than this one. Based on that translation, the subject of the article here is "anthropocentricism" (not Anthropocentrism) which it distinguishes from "interpersonalism". Google translates various phrases as "(thing) research" when it clearly means "research about (thing)", not actually intending to imply that it is a whole academic field or discipline. So, in addition to overstating its case, it is not even clear that the article is correctly named. I don't see a topic here in its own right. This seems like it is just fictosexuality being defined by its inverse. In my view this is already covered adequately in the fictosexuality article but I would not object to a very few sentences from this possibly getting merged there provided that they are well referenced. I wouldn't rule out very brief mentions in Heteronormativity and Amatonormativity provided that there are solid references to support inclusion in those specific places. Whatever we do, we must not be led astray by WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or dodgy translations. Most of all, we need to focus on what the Japanese academics actually say and avoid falling into western misinterpretations. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at very least merge. The topic has been studied in multiple scholarly sources, so it's hard for me to think that deletion would be appropriate. If the article is fringe and "advocacy" (which hasn't been proven), then it should be possible to find opposing sources and edit the content with opposing views to balance the coverage on the article. Until then, it can be marked as {{fringe}} without needing to delete it. Because this topic is closely associated with fictosexuality, I can also see a merge as a valid option. However, it's interesting that one of the allegations is a "would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology"; "would"? "almost certainly"? That doesn't seem to be an objective, concrete allegation — is it or not? Skyshiftertalk 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason there is little critical coverage is that this very idea is so new (and frankly absurd) that no serious researchers have bothered to actually study the concept. It's pretty much 100% POV pushing "scholarly" sources from obscure blogs and low quality "journals". Way too many of Wikipedias articles on sexuality are just filled with borderline oppinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science, and this and the fictosexuality articles are the worst offenders I think I've ever seen. This website has frankly become way too forgiving to advocacy pushing, even on LGBT topics (and I say this as a bisexual woman).★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why did you add back on Wikidata that fictosexuality is a sexual orientation when the wide consensus is that sexual orientations refer only to sexual preferences for gender/sex of persons? It does not seem to me that that speaks to you being unbiased and objective on this subject.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if the wide consensus is that sexual orientation quote unqoute "refer only to sexual preferences for gender/sex of persons" then that would wholly exclude asexuals. (I say this as an Asexual/Aceflux, nonbinary women) Remember to WP:AGF. I don't think this page is "pushing advocacy", "an attempt at trickery", or "hijacking LGBT rethoric". I do agree it's not completely unbiased and objective. I'd say to merge this with the fictosexual page based on the WP:GNG while also rewriting both as you are correct about both pages being WP:NPOV. It should definitely include more about how it's generally considered a mirco-term/label and how it is a fringe topic. Funtimesale123 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What leads you to perceive this article as "100% POV" relying on "low-quality "journals"? For instance, The Japan Sociological Society (日本社会学会) is Japan's largest academic society for the social sciences, and the Japanese Sociological Review is the top journal of sociology in Japan. The Institute for Gender Studies at Ochanomizu University is run by Japan's most prestigious women's university, and its peer-reviewed journal, Gender Studies, enjoys wide readership among gender researchers in Japan. The Japanese Association of Social Problems (日本社会病理学会) and the Japan Sociological Association for Social Analysis (日本社会分析学会) are members of the Japan Consortium for Sociological Society, comprising major sociological societies in Japan. These journals are evidently reliable sources. As far as I know, Kazuki Fujitaka (藤高和輝) is a well-known queer researcher in Japan who has published several academic books. Masahiro Yamada is a renowned sociologist who has researched Japan's declining birthrate. Given the assessments of these researchers, it would be unfair to dismiss this article as "just filled with borderline opinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science" simply because the concept is unfamiliar to non-researchers. Certainly, there is room for further improvement in this article, but that should be addressed by making additions and corrections to the article.  Considering Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't believe this article should be deleted.
Gruebleener (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are little of what the article covers, it's not even clear that the translations here are accurate. Any of what they can say would be better said in the fictosexuality article, there is no independent notable subject here. ★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned information pertains to the sources supporting the essential content of this article. Additionally, Shin-yo-sha (新曜社) and Seibundo (成文堂) appear to be long-established academic publishers. I've made effort to improve the quality of the translation, and with the help of other editors, I hope it can be further refined.
Just as separate articles are created for topics like lesbian/gay and heteronormativity, fictosexuality and human-oriented sexualism should be addressed in distinct articles. Furthermore, given that "fictosexuality" is an English-speaking term and "human-oriented sexualism" is a concept originating from Japan, it seems more reasonable to maintain separate articles for each. Gruebleener (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No there is no good reason to have a spin-off of an already fringe topic like this just because a few possibly reliable sources have mentioned it, it's still fringe. Soft sciences like sociology come up with new terms for obscure topics all the time, and even reliable sources sometimes publish junk science, especially lately as the publishing industry has become more and more money driven. Fictosexuality is in no reality comparable to homosexuality, which is a mainstream widely accepted phenomenon studied for all of human history, especially in science for the last century. You are very clearly a single purpose editor with activist/advocacy bias here.★Trekker (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something more rational to compare it to would be xenogenders, which also doesn't have it's own article as it's still a fringe idea that is not widely accepted in the scientific community (and yet far better researched than than this supposed identity).★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sourcing in more depth... while trying to keep a straight face at all of this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fictosexuality or Nijikon § Human-oriented sexualism per Sjakkalle. I'm not opposed to keeping. --MikutoH talk! 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have strong feelings about this article but noting that while I understand @Sjakkalle and @MikutoH's arguments, WP:UNDUE is about how fringe ideas are represented within existing articles. In this case, the discussion is about whether there's sufficient sources to list have this standalone article which, as WP:UNDUE also notes, "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)." If the sourcing is adequate enough to reject deletion as Sjakkalle then it seems to me the article needs to be rewritten to appropriately describe a fringe viewpoint rather than deletion. DCsansei (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some decades back, Jimbo Wales gave an interpretation of how fringe views should be covered in relation to the NPOV policy, and one of those ideas, cited in the WP:UNDUE section of the NPOV policy is that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I believe that my "merge" vote above is firmly in line with this content policy. The viewpoint presented in this article, that considering attraction between real and non-fictional humans to be the norm is somehow discriminatory, is held by an extremely small minority. I would say it does not belong in Wikipedia, except that the sourcing makes me just about willing to accept accommodating the material in the ancillary article on Fictosexuality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this article could be viewed as the ancillary article where it gets included but that's fair enough. DCsansei (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with fictosexuality, this topic is not in any way independent of the other. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, articles on sexuality and normativity are separated. For example, allonormativity and amatonormativity have separate articles from asexuality. In fact, this article covers topics beyond fictosexuality, including etymology and background, fan or otaku, law, intimacy and family.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As an AFD closer, after reading the discussion, I'm leaning towards a Merge but there are also arguments against that outcome and no rough consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the treatment of "human-oriented sexualism" in Japan is similar to that of "allonormativity" in the English-speaking world. While both terms may not be widely recognized in society at large, there are reliable researches supporting them, and they are used by scholars as well as minority communities. The article on allonormativity is independent and is not treated as fringe, so I believe "human-oriented sexualism" should be treated the same way. Gruebleener (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a possibility that they might be the same subject under different names then that would point to a possible merge, not to keeping both. I am inclined to agree with the nomination that the article content is a COATRACK for fictosexuality but if you think that the article title is a synonym for allonormativity then maybe we should consider redirecting to that? DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement concerns how widely known the terms are and does not imply that "human-oriented sexualism" and "allonormativity" are synonyms. Gruebleener (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned WP:UNDUE, we should consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. I believe Japanese sources should be evaluated impartially. At least it is supposed that this article meet the criteria of WP:GNG Gruebleener (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with fictosexuality. This article is just the inverse of that concept; there's no extra content that's gained by having a second article. If a reader is reading the fictosexuality article and clicks on the link to human-oriented sexualism, they gain no new insights; it's simply a waste of their time. Toughpigs (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanielRigal, Toughpigs, Headbomb, and Sjakkalle: wouldn't it work better merging with sexual norm? --MikutoH talk! 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is a fringe subject that shouldn't be merged with a commonly accepted subject. Toughpigs (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Toughpigs' position and reasoning. The content here is used when discussing the fringe subject of fictosexuality, and exclusively so. Per WP:UNDUE, it should therefore be covered in the article on that fringe subject, and not a more mainstream article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Didn't expect it but the topic does seem to have sourcing needed to avoid deletion. {{fringe}} seems appropriate and it should be made clear that this is a fringe idea including in Japan so I think a merger to fictosexuality or sexual norm is the best option. DCsansei (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (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.
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. While there was some !voting for merging or keeping, the consensus of editors, when weighing against policies and guidelines, was for deletion. Some suggested salting these titles. I'm not sure salting is appropriate in this circumstance (1 merge, 1 deletion AfD each under a different name) and so am not doing this, but without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator choosing to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)

EcoCute (Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute in February was to merge it to Air source heat pump. They should be re-merged absent a changed consensus to split the content back out into its own article, such as via a WP:SPLIT discussion or WP:DRV. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the previous discussion but have only just now become aware of this one. Also Wikiproject Energy was on the previous article but until now this article had no Wikiprojects on this talk page. Is there any way you could automatically notify people who were watching the previous article? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: EcoCute is trademark with millions of units used in Japan, some number of units also used in oversea, hopefully more number in area other than Japan. Installations, Japan and oversea case study list Article context and external link shows reality. I had created article EcoCute in July 2008‎, in January 2024, nominated for delete, then merged to, but eliminated section EcoCute in Air source heat pump thereafter. EcoCute (Japan) is based on number of units used/working in Japan, so that this is eligible to be an article in fact with (Japan). As Generic trademark, no one nominate trademark Coca-Cola merger into Coke nor Jeep into automobile, neither Wikipedia® registered trademark neither. EcoCute is registered and generic trademark. I shall repeat once again:
Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. This comment is in My opinon on 12:46, 7 February 2024. If this nomination be resulted as merge back to Air source heat pump again, or other, merge or delete nomination will be happened again and again. Independent article EcoCute (Japan) is much safer from delete/merge, and contribute CO2 reduction with implemented efficiency. --Namazu-tron (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: As I argued previously, if I remember right, nowadays this is not sufficiently different from other air source heat pumps to merit a separate article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: As I have only now added projects to the talk page will they still be automatically notified of this discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again: History of EcoCute merged after discussion in to Air source heat pump as section, then section deleted/eliminated without any talk, then ECoCute (Jpapan) created. Now EcoCute (Japan) is on AfD/ Merged again. If resulted to mereged in this discuss again and again, can anyone garantee protect/not be eliminated section EcoCute or EcoCute (Japan) by Banners like SfD (Section for Detele) for discussion, KS (Keep this Section) or something else.
Following step 1) - 4) is the editing history.
1) EcoCute, First AfD - EcouCute AfD Discussion resulted as merge on 17 February 2024
2) Then deletedm and merged into Air source heat pump EcoCute deleted, merged as section and redirected on 18 February 2024
3) Sudden Deleted section EcoCute on 27 March 2024 from Article Air source heat pump without any talk/discuss.
4) EcoCute, redirect to Fresh article EcoCute (Japan) on 25 April 2024--Namazu-tron (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)--Namazu-tron (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with keep, note that you only get one vote so you should consolidate your argument into one section or re-label one of them as a comment DCsansei (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know nobody can guarantee that a merged section would not be deleted. I agree with @MrOllie that the section was too lengthy and only covered one product. However as this seems to have been very ahead of its time I believe it should be covered briefly in the air source heat pump article along with some other companies and/or products. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I deleted the section because it was a WP:UNDUE problem and looked like an advertisement for one company's product in that context. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pls See section of talk page of EcoCute (Japan), '''Manufactures of EcoCute in Japan.''' EcoCute is not one company’s products, all mfg./vender, equally competing in market with named EcoCute, product type of Air source heat pump, as article said, to identify, not confused with other type of Air source heat pump by both seller and customer. I would like all you here to review for my long opinions on other page/section.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a registered trademark. Whether they are manufactured directly by that company or under license from that company is a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number of companies produce variety number of models, size, performance and sell/buy price and others. Minimum requirement is both Refrigerant is CO2 and making hot water, it is named as EcoCute in fair markets. Telling/ display/ indication of word EcoCute in sales promotion is no advantage, it just shows merely type of heat pump, not such as gas nor electric heating.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If some other companies and/or variety of products put on market in future, and is comparable or superior, than or equal capability to EcoCute reduce CO2/ emission and Greenhouse gas, that will be a time to merge these as one type of heat pump in Air source heat pump sections.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and specifically Do not merge. Either it is notable enough for a standalone article or it isn't, and if it isn't it definitely should not be dumped into a general article - Wikipedia isn't a catalog, we should not be writing about individual product offerings in generic articles like that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Top wording changed/edited today. As (The EcoCute is an energy-efficient, type of Air source heat pump and only for water heating as the single hot water supply system, not use for air conditioning or alike.) Millions units sold EcoCute use Air source heat pump, air conditioner use Air source heat pump as well, Refrigerator use Heat pump. Car use Engine. Even trade mark Coca-Cola and Jeep, all these has an article on Wikipedia here.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and SALT both this and EcoCute for six months. It is clear that the title-gaming author has no intention of abiding by the result of a merge in this AfD any more than they did in the previous AfD. Any additional attempts to circumvent consensus by title-gaming should be handled with a topic ban. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Comment: As of article version 05:15, 19 May 2024, JIS JIS C 9220：2018 in section “EcoCute machine basics”, it should be noted that no equivalent total system, EcoCute is 1: heat pump air sourced + 2: hot water storage tank + 3: supply with CO2 Refrigerant. Air source heat pump is describe step 1: only and functional usage is for air conditioner, bathing, underfloor heating and etc., and any conceivable use connecting to room air conditioning unit or to water unit or any unit for purpose. JIS C 9220 standards clearly defined/request associated hot water tank mandatory as single system. I am not sure standard for air source heat pump is, but sure that it may not defined/request associated hot water tank. My “keep” position is rationally with/based reasons, facts and differences.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already !voted above. Owen× ☎ 09:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for quick advice. Noticed the rule.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many air source heat pump systems in Europe include hot water tanks. Certainly Ecocute should be mentioned in the Air source heat pump history section as it was so ahead of its time. It was a great pioneer but nowadays others have caught up. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A brief mention would not be amiss (like, one sentence), but making more than 1/3 of the article about Ecocute is far too much. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT/redirect and consider topic-banning Namazu-tron from this topic due to apparent undisclosed COI. DCsansei has found some references that do include significant coverage of the subject in major Japanese publications such as NHK [12] and Yomiuri Shimbun ([13]). However, this coverage is exclusively negative, and the state of the article as written by Namazu-tron does not even begin to incorporate this information. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, get the clear sense we're dealing with a COI/UPE here. The tendentious, unrelenting recreation/reversion pattern and the promotional tone suggest, at the very least, a strong POV. Rosguill, please ping me if you take this to AN/I or such. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Archived NHK and Yomiuri Shimbun site are dated almost 10 years ago. Capable Japanese mfg. seems solve the problems, and no social topics on TV nor Newspaper nowadays, and I’m no intention to hide these topics for edit. My edit thinking/idea for “basic”section seems almost dried up now. I’m seeing Japanese EcoCute (エコキュート) has section health hazards　(健康被害） and etc.(その他), and my plan has to be to add these topic as next step in edit, and I will edit for problem/negative/positive topics by taking time or days.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There appears to be a consensus not to keep, but there's no consensus yet for delete, merge, or redirect. A topic ban is not a valid AfD outcome; that discussion should be had at AN or ANI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I do think that the past coverage I dug up constitutes sufficient significant coverage of the subject to pass the GNG but I've edited my vote into a comment. I think merge is the best outcome here given the state of the article. DCsansei (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Do not merge: We do not publish product brochures or sell sheets, but that's what IMHO this pagespace best resembles. For the purposes of this discussion, nothing in this article should be used in a Wikipedia article on air pumps without a critical screening. The behavior of User:Namazu-tron in this process is a separate (but not unrelated) issue. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created a report at the COI noticeboard where User:Namazu-tron might explain their fierce loyalty to these two pages. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to created a report, Thank you. --Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Initial version EcoCute in 2008 has full of section “history”, and Air source heat pump did not have section “history” before marge EcoCute into Air source heat pump version 27 January 2024 which keeps afterward section history with almost full content from merged EcoCute nowaday, this is my pleasure in editing. JIS in 2011 revised in 2018 Standards issued with titled C 9220：2018“Residential heat pump water heaters (家庭用ヒートポンプ給湯機)”, which illustrated requisite be to heat pump and water heaters storage tank as the single of heat pump unit + water heater unit with storage tank as a whole. This is new and innovating type of product, named ECoCute though, placed in market in 2001, and record cumulative 9 million units by 2023.“Residential heat pump water heaters” is not a part of Air source heat pump. It is the product appeared consequence of technical/engineering innovation day by day. ISO has not issued standards equivalent to JIS C 9220：2018 yet, hopefully they issue in future in coming years. ISO: Heat pump water heater for hot water supply Wikipedia should accept new product as the article as the internet encyclopedia, when term EcoCute deleted or merged then disappear, it brings reader is hard to find out that term, such consequence is not the purpose of existence of Wikipedia. Articles quality is important, also user friendly/usability is important as donation based entire Wikipedia/Wikimedia system. We don’t want to see/hear that AI and/or GPT indicate/speak term/word neither “EcoCute” nor “Residential heat pump water heaters” in Wikipedia.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISO standards added, reference only.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. I don't think all of those previous AFDs listed were on this same article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwein

AfDs for this article:
Schwein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting as previous nomination did not attract any comment and soft deletion was not applicable. Non-notable band that only lasted one year; no sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should stay up. Per v, point 6, the group consists of several independently notable musicians. Weiqwbo (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – KMFDM's parallel project, I believe it has enough notability. Svartner (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete: While it is composed of notable bands, I am unable to find any significant coverage of this band or the albums. Almost all of the mentions I can find of it are just in interviews with Raymond Watts. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The entire article is an inference that notability is inherited (by participation in other bands). Nothing applied, presented, or found which meets direct detailing in reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Notability matters, we don't want to bloat the individual artists' pages.
    The band operated mainly in Japan, or at least only performed live there so the problem with finding sources is that they would be in Japanese magazines of that time (more than twenty years ago). Which are one) hard to find nowadays, two) expensive to acquire when found, and, I suppose, three) wikipedia would knock them as sources since most of them would be featuring interviews with the band members and wikipedia considers this self-promotion (in my opinion that's not entirely relevant, if the publication is in a reputable magazine, it should count, since a reputable magazine wouldn't print about randos even if the randos paid. But what am I doing using logic here.)
    Some scans of magazines can be found here:
    https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58976.html
    https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58387.html
    https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/9790.html
    Scans are probably the closest we can get to the magazines but we have to acknowledge that fans are more likely to want to preserve the musicians' own words over those of random reporters. Weiqwbo (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (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.



Categories

  • Add categories here using the {{cl|CATEGORY}} template

Images

  • Add images here using the [[:File:FILENAME]] semicolon to start the link

Templates

  • Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template

Redirects

  • Add redirects here using the {{no redirect|REDIRECT}} template

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

This project article is part of WikiProject Japan. Click here for more information.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Japan&oldid=1224271042"