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:
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.
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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Japan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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:
Speedy Keep for failure to state a deletion rationale.The article has multiple sources, including a peer-reviewed academic article and an article in Daily Mirror (which is a no-consensus at WP:RSP), plus a mention in a book. There could be a policy-based argument but the nomination statement doesn't even try. Oblivy (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Miminity - Could you please list below which are the three best citations that are: verifiable secondary reliable sources that provide in-depth significant coverage, and are fully-independent from the subject himself? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: sorry for the late reply: It passes GNG, Despite the (1) PBS source being about a local event, it is still not a WP:MILL news, it is still has a significant coverage about who the author is. (2) ThisSankei Sports review. (3) This Nihonbashi Keizai Article
Hi Miminity, Thank you for getting back to me. We differ in our analyses of the sources. I’ve already expressed what I thought about the PBS source (so I won't repeat myself here); the Sankai Sports piece is in a sports publication rather than an art or art history publication – it’s PR for a show at a department store and seems to be a press release not in any way a serious art review of a show at a museum or notable gallery or national gallery. The is promo for a calligraphy performance event, not an art review of his work. The Sports Hochi has the same problem in that it is not a serious art reference in an art publication, it’s about his performance of calligraphy as a kind of sport performed in a store. It’s human interest story, content created for the sports public not serious art criticism or art history. He does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Don’t get me wrong, he seems like a great guy and an interesting calligrapher. I just don’t think the sourcing is what is usually present for a notable artist. Maybe in a few more years but now it is WP:TOOSOON.
This citation is pretty good: Cipango is a peer reviewed publication. I’d count that towards GNG, but not the others. If you can find two more like this I might change my mind. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Winning a 2019 "Best Father Award" from Japan Men's Fashion Association (MFU) is not notable. The PBS reference noted above is a review of a local exhibition at the Porch Gallery Ojai. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added an image to the article. See RIKEN Advance Institute for Computational Science (AICS-RIKEN) photo gallery for more pictures. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article fails WP:NARTIST due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources in the article seem to be PR or promotional puff pieces. What are needed are serious critical analysis of his work within an art historical framework. It doesn't matter that he's written a lot of books, if his books have not received critical attention he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. WomanArtistUpdates rationale is very clear, as is their point that PBS is local coverage for a hyper-local event. Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific author. Popular calligraphy artist. In practical terms, his work can be seen on the K computer (article available in several languages); image found in Commons. Originally, the article "Soun Takeda" (jp: 武田双雲) was translated from Wikipedia in Japanese. Thanks Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are four single authored books here, which, if they're reviewed, may make a case for WP:AUTHOR. But it's difficult for me to search for reviews in Japanese. The book with the title translated as "Feminism is Trouble" is reviewed here[2]. Jahaza (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is true that Fujitaka is not well known in the English-speaking world, but they is a well-known scholar of queer theory in Japan. While this is supported indirectly by English-language sources, Kawasaka and Würrer’s article cites their books Judith Butler and Feminism as “Trouble” as “important contributions” to queer theory in Japan. In addition, Fujitaka has been actively engaged in critiquing transphobia in Japan, which suggests that their public engagement beyond academia should also be taken into account. Although English-language information on this is limited, Yamada’s article may serve as a useful reference. I believe the article would be better improved by incorporating such information rather than deleted.--QJmisaki (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kawasaka and Würrer’s article cites their books Judith Butler and Feminism as “Trouble” as “important contributions” to queer theory in Japan Well, if they were really "important contributions" worthy of a Wikipedia article, I think there would be more to say than a single vague mention. This is the entire quote you are referring to:
The corpus of queer studies also grew after 2010 with important contributions to various fields, including, for example, queer theory and criticism by Nagashima Saeko (2013, 2019), Fujitaka Kazuki (2018, 2022)...
Fujitaka has been actively engaged in critiquing transphobia in Japan Has this received coverage in reliable sources, Japanese or otherwise? Foreign language sources are allowed here. See WP:NONENG. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One online article states that “among the essential Japanese-language works for studying intersectionality are writings by Risa Kumamoto, Kazuki Fujitaka, and Akiko Shimizu,” and it includes an explanation of Fujitaka’s research. The essay by Fujitaka cited in the article is included in Feminism as a Trouble. The author of the web article is a sociologist who conducts research on racism in Japan and is also a translator of academic texts on intersectionality.
As for the social reception of Fujitaka’s writings on transgender discrimination, I have not yet found reliable sources, but I will continue looking into it. QJmisaki (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR with several (at least two, sounds like four) academic reviews on his different books. Still seems a little early for a full article on a junior researcher, but to me it seems they pass the bar. --hroest15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They have published this book "Guide to Aro/Ace" (in japanese) but I don't have any details on it being a significant book. The article appears to be mostly translated from the Japanese article of the same name but without attribution so that should be fixed as well. Moritoriko (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the translator of this article. I translated it from the Japanese Wikipedia, and I apologize for omitting attribution to the original sources in the translation. I decided to translate the article because the subject has published a sole-authored academic book, received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association, had their research translated and introduced in other languages, and appears to be active outside academia as well. For these reasons, I believed the article was worth translating. While I acknowledge that some parts may currently lack sufficient information, I believe it would be more constructive to improve the article by adding reliable sources rather than deleting it.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the subject has published a sole-authored academic book This is not relevant to NACADEMIC #1, unless the book has had a "significant impact".
received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association Receiving the 23rd Japan Sociological Society Encouraging Award (Article Category) - basically an emerging scholar award - seems like a respectable achievement, but not "highly prestigious" as required by NACADEMIC #2.
had their research translated and introduced in other languages Having research translated is not by itself evidence of significant impact.
appears to be active outside academia as well You are welcome to produce sources to help meet WP:GNG, because I still don't see the case for NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s true that, based on the information available online, there may not be sufficient evidence that the subject meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. However, as I understand it, not meeting WP:NACADEMIC does not automatically require deletion. In particular, it is important to consider that minority groups in non-Western contexts are often underrepresented on Wikipedia (WP:GLOBALIZE). Even if the article does not fully meet WP:NACADEMIC, the information presented may still suggest a certain level of notability. QJmisaki (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese. Additionally, many Japanese academic publications, particularly books, are not indexed by Google Scholar, so citation counts there may not accurately reflect the significance of Japanese-language sources.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese Do you have a secondary source that says this? Being the first academic book on X in language Y is not by itself evidence of significant impact in a field. Has the book been widely reviewed by academics and the media, has it been cited and interpreted by other scholars, etc.? Since it just came out this year - I'm guessing no. Astaire (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. The vast majority of sources appear to be retroactive to the subject itself, lacking third-party sources. Svartner (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt pass WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF and I dont see any evidence of passing WP:GNG. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, this person just finished their PhD in 2024. I dont see any reviews of their book, at least not in JSTOR in English, the one academic review in Japanese does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest15:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to above. With a 2024 PhD it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I do not see any indications of sufficient citations, with the caveat that there are others with the same initials.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pretty much the same pushing of fringe ideas as human-oriented sexualism which i nominated in 2024. The creator Gruebleener seems to be a single-purpose account as they have made pretty much no other edits since that deletion discussion except creating this recently. This is WP:COATRACK for the fictosexuality article and I don't see anything here worth merging, it's all fringe activist nonsense. ★Trekker (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe concept that is mostly sourced to its creator Gō Itō; this fails the "independent of the subject" part of WP:GNG. Another source is a blog [4]. The concept is mentioned in passing in the other sources, but is not the main subject, suggesting that it is not appropriate for a standalone page. Astaire (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the subject meets the notability criteria for a standalone article. However, since there appear to be some academic sources discussing this topic in relation to moe, it might be better to simplify the content, remove unreliable sources, and merge it into the Moe article.--QJmisaki (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion outlines the reasons for this well. It is not an official position in Japan and is not viewed as one in Japan either. No Japanese page similarly drives this point well Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete no refs that define the term. I checked a several refs, and they are fake or non-RS or broken. At best, they say "Yamada Gombei is the leader of the main oppo party", but it does not say he is an opposition leader. --Altenmann>talk00:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the page itself says, this is not a legal position in Japan. Given the paucity of sources, the rationale from the previous AfD still applies. JMWt (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drawing on the prior history of the AfD and the rationale that there is no such term or related page in Japanese Wikipedia then why do we have one on English Wikipedia?Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails notability guidelines for music; it's a song by a not super well known artist, and this song hasn't won any awards, received coverage, etc. This article doesn't have any citations and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claims in the nomination seem to indicate that a WP:BEFORE was not performed in Japanese or that the nominator is not familiar with Japanese music. I don't have any problem with the suggested redirection unless sources are found, but this song did chart nationally in Japan indicating possible notability under WP:NSINGLE, and the group has at least 7 top-10 albums which belies the claim that the artists are obscure. I would suggest trying to find sources in Japanese before nominating similar articles in the future. Dekimasuよ!22:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- thanks for pointing that out; I'm not knowledgeable in this area and in the future I will search for sources in the original language. My statement that the group wasn't notable was incorrect, I agree with the redirect idea. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, is there more support for Redirection? Or other options? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an article from Oricon stating that the first episode had a 17% nationwide viewership. Mantan Web reports that its final episode had an 18.4% nationwide viewership. It seems to have been highly viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BASIC is a notability guidelines for people, and doesn't apply to the notability of TV shows. Also note that viewership numbers have never been valid proof of notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
