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:
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:
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]
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[1]. 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]
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]
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]
Comment while I'm neutral about this, try searching the Japanese name into google using above. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:49, 3 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]
Comment: A quick look at the Japanese wiki. I see that this article is a verbatim translation and unattributed translation of ja:萌えフォビア. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:06, 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 [3]. 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit23:48, 3 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]
Strong keep - Have fleshed out article with two in-depth articles detailing his time in Brazil, as well as multiple other smaller articles. Meets GNG. Zênite (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh wow, fantastic additions Zênite! I would be very happy to keep the article now after the WP:HEY. I can't speedy close this due to Clara's delete but I will ping @Clariniie: to ask her to look at it again :) RossEvans19 (talk) - 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of these from Targma is one I independently thought worth further discussion, below. However no one has addressed the question of reliability. Isn't this primary reporting of team news? As it stands that is not a clear pass to me, but would be happy to have the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I found this in Brazilian media [5], [6], basically talking about his signing by Sport Capixaba in 2016 and summarizing his time in Brazil. I don't know if it's enough, but it can certainly help. Svartner (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak delete.. changed course here after more recent considerations and especially in light of Sirfurboy's comments and further source review. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a chain of trust issue here if we say per the above editor, and that editor only says that sources "apparently" show notability. Are we reading the sources here? I haven't yet, but making this comment to request a relist since we are on day 7, and I would need some time to do so. On the face of it, the page looks reasonable, but a source review would be good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I have now conducted my source review. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliables secondary sources. There are 16 sources currently on the page, although, in fact, multiple articles from the same outlet will count as a single source for purposes of GNG. There are thus potentially 10 there. My source review looks at all 16, but treats like sources together. There are a couple that we could discuss further, but on the face of it, I am not certain we have any suitable sources and I am reasonably clear we don't have multiple sources. Source assessment:
8, 10 & 11. [15][16][17]Reporting of team announcements - primary. N
9. & 15. [18][19] - Team reports are primary. The second of these (source 15) has more in depth information about the subject, although it is yielded from an interview and in a source that appears primary. I will mark it as a maybe, however, to indicate this is one we might discuss further. N & ?
Thanks for looking. It is not the quality of the source that makes them primary, it is the content. I agree it is a good source, but they are primary because all they have is a brief news report about him joining the team. Source 6 has Tigre Linharense confirmed the arrival of 19-year-old Japanese midfielder Yutaro Yoshino, who is already with the rest of the squad finalising their pre-season in Atibaia, São Paulo. and nothing more. As well as being primary, of course, that is not SIGCOV, so either way it is out. Source 7 is fuller, with 3 paragraphs about the page subject arriving at the club. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the subject himself, but we are told he has arrived and will be playing on Wednesday. Also note that it says "Sport-ES received news..." So this is classic club news reporting. We are told a player has been signed, arrived and will play in the next match. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: It is what is in the report that makes this primary. In any case, what could we use from that report to write the page? We cannot even say he did play on that date, because we only have this report that he was meant to. There is no secondary information about the player from which an encyclopaedic page could be written. 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These two sources perfectly cover his formative period in Brazilian football. The question is which sources cover the period of his return to Japan. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per @Sirfurboy's analysis. #5 (COJB) appears to be a club he belonged to ("I hope this will be the case for Yoshino and the other members who have left COJB.") and is thus not independent. #15 (Tagma interview) appears to be hosted, SB Nation-style, on the fan "web magazine" for YSCC. I can't find any info on editorial control, but it seems to be a one-man operation from the articles I can find. Doubtful it is RS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis by Sirfurboy and JoelleJay. Of the sources listed, only #15 is possibly GNG-conforming (the reliability of the source is questionable though there is apparent significant, independent coverage). That alone wouldn't be enough to allow the subject pass GNG, which generally expects multiple references. FrankAnchor20:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - @Iljhgtn:, should still be a weak keep at least... Idk how [23] ("a graduate of YS Academy. His calm tone and smile give this impression. But people like this always have something burning inside them. He left his hometown of Yokohama and honed his skills in Brazil. The language and culture are different. He survived in a country with a completely different security situation. Behind his gentle expression is a strong, courageous man. A fan of professional wrestling. He is fluent in Portuguese"), [24] ("After graduating from junior high school, he learned the language while playing in Brazil. In 2022, while he was undergoing rehabilitation, he also served as an interpreter for Brazilian player Rizzi, who was a member of YSCC's futsal team"), [25], ("went to Brazil at the age of 15 and played there for about six and a half years, and then built a professional career in Japan"), [26], ("Yoshino, who joined YS Yokohama in 2020, played in seven league games that season, but did not play in 2021 or 2022") combined with sources about his inuries and signings do ot and pro appearances does noit meet critria. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the Lucas Kubr AfD that the issue of Q+A interviews has already been raised with you (apparently repeatedly). These are Q+A interviews, and cannot be used to establish notability per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is too long and meta to be discussed here, but there is certainly more to be said. Guidance is at WP:IV. But in this case, all we have is primary information that is excluded per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody would not be counted towards anything... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:17, 28 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:
