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:
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 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.
Delete. This seems likely to be an autobiographical article given that it was created by Vorgs and it states that the person calls himself Vorgs as a nickname. Hence everything in the article is inherently COI. Also, this may be a copy or near-copy of a recently deleted article: Vorgs. SoapTalk/Contributions04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extensively footnoted, without any sources -- and I'm not finding anything even non-reliable to confirm a word of it. A lot of effort went into this apparent hoax. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (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.
Can find no reliable sources on google for this film, and none are provided in the article. Nothing to meet notability guidelines. I did a google (+ gnews) search for the title in quotes + the surname of the director and came up with 2 hits, both unrelated. Also, a conflict of interest as the article appears to have been written by the film's director. BelovedFreak11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film does exist, I promise. The reason I added a Wiki article is that I want to provide a web page on Wiki that lists significant modern architectural buildings in Tokyo. I have trimmed down the length of the article so that it does not seem to be a conflict with my own agenda and merely use it as a reference tool so that other people wanting to see a list of significant modern buildings in Tokyo can find it online. This data is also not available elsewhere and is independent research, but it is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainoverton (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - further edits to the article show that the actual title of the film is Mr Smith Takes a Short Trip to Tokyo. Searching under this title gives some reliable sources, but mentions seem fairly trivial as far as I can see. It's not listed on the imdb page for the director. --BelovedFreak18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added short item about the event from Blueprint Magazine: little more than an events listing, really. I also took the liberty of renaming to "Mr. Smith Takes a Short Trip to Tokyo," although, if this article really was created and named by the filmmaker, might have been a liberty I shouldn't have taken, since it's likely he knows best what his film is called. Shame if it gets deleted, as I love documentaries about architecture. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2009 (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.
Keep: The article could do with more detailed footnotes, but it appears to be reliably referenced, so the simple "Original research" reason given for deletion is not valid here. Nominator could have considered tagging the article as "Original research" first if he/she had concerns. --DAJF (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Footnotes and links added. Will rewrite the article to keep wiki style. Links made to site so it is no longer orphaned. Reason for deletion is not valid. 12:46, 9 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.64.103 (talk)
Needs work, including additional sources, but given current sources appears to be a notable topic, and that is all we should be judging here. Article is currently written from a neutral point of view, which would be my biggest concern. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (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. The overall policy-supported consensus here is in favour of deletion; while hypothetical statements of notability and reliable-source coverage were made none of those arguing to keep the article provided enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to comply with the applicable notability guidelines. From an encyclopedia's point of view, coverage solely in self-published and unreliable sources does not make for a reliable article. ~ mazcatalk19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable video game musician who supposedly has composed music from a few of the DBZ games, though there is no reliable source confirming this, just a single infoseek link. If all that can be said about this person from even none reliable sources is a list of works, it fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE, as well as introducing BLP concerns. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a vastly popular long running series could easily afford to hire anyone they wanted, but choose him time and again. His work is a notable part of games and shows that millions of people see. DreamFocus21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of reliable sources is an issue, if it was sourced I would suggest merging to Dragonball, making a note in the relevant sections that he composed music for Kai and the games. However the lack of reliable sources would cause problems if that action was chosen, as the rest of the article has demonstrated at least some degree of reliability (at a glance). So unless reliable sources are found I'm going with Delete per Farix's and RUL3R. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sources, just not listed here. VGMdb has an entire discography listed for him with linked albums and scans for legitimacy: [4]. MobyGames also has entries listed for him as composer (e.g. [5],[6]). He is the predominate composer for a major video game series covering a dozen games played by millions of people. His music has gotten several album releases by major record labels in Japan. (see the VGMdb link). That should meet enough criteria. --Kaleb.G (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
vgmdb is a user edited site and not a reliable source. No one has denied he has done music, however, no reliable sources say anything about him other than listing his credits. That does not meet notability criteria for the person, even if he has done several albums for a series. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once does not achieve a Discography like that without being notable. A major company wouldn't keep putting those out for the Dragonball series, if they weren't selling well. Common sense over wikilawyering. And if they haven't been released in America, then you can't even look for sources for any of the albums, unless you find someone who speaks Japanese. And how often do albums based on a cartoon/manga/video game series get reviewed in the media? Does anyone know where the Japanese album sales are listed? They surely have a site like Billboard.com somewhere. If the albums were hits, then the one who produced them is automatically a hit on that alone. DreamFocus01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would you know? Are you a Japanese company and do you have any knowledge or understanding of how Japanese culture works? Almost every anime series, even the worst received, will still put out soundtracks, and in Japanese culture it would make perfect sense to keep him around even if he did not great music nor was notable. And no, the albums being hits does not make a performer on them (not a producer) automatically notable. Notability is not inherited and he is a living person who deserves the respect of not having an unsourced article making claims about him just because anyone can go around and throw anything they want about him there out of a non-existent claim of notability. The onus is on those saying keep to find sources. One can search in Japanese, but unlike American culture where the theme singer might have tons of press and what not, he likely would not anymore than any other person who contributed to the work. American thinking is about the I - Japanese about the - We. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After lurking around the web i doubt that we have enough to support the notability of this person [7][8][9][10][11][12]. This person worked outside DBZ mainly as an arranger [13]. He is an arranger first & composer second. Verifiability issue, Oricon doesn't give the full artist credit for every DBZ related CDs. Notability issue, none of the DBZ CDs i could check, made it into the Oricon chart. Personal comment, this person should be notable by himself NOT because he composed DBZ musics. I think title like "Kenji Yamamoto (DBZ game musician)" is rather insulting. Regardless whatever he is notable or not this person has an existence outside DBZ so reducing him to the guy who did the DBZ music is rude to not say more. --KrebMarkt07:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i didn't say that he was notable :p One is an arranger/compositor and the other a music director/compositor no luck same name and same field of practice. --KrebMarkt21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recent changes. Article now includes reliable sources and is not just a list of his credits. Used the profile at his management's site as the main source. Also, because it's an annoying misconception: VGMdb is not a user-edited site (like Wikipedia). It is user-contributed. All edits, without exception, are proofread and double-checked by knowledgeable staff members. Prime Blue (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mangement's profile page is a directory and it's not a source independent of the subject. The VGMdb reference is clearly a database. Neither one of these can be used as evidence for notability. And his credits don't show any evidence that he passes WP:COMPOSER either. --Farix (Talk) 15:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The management site is used as a source for occupational information about Yamamoto, not his composition credits. And WP:SELFPUB encourages this source as long as it's not full of self-serving, fact-twisting adulation (which seems to be your point of criticism in order to challenge it – if I understood you right) which is not the case. And WP:COMPOSER is clearly talking about notable compositions, in that they are professional and it sets them apart from, say, someone who just happens to hum a melody, write lyrics to it and claim himself to be a composer. Yamamoto composed music for a reasonably successful game series and had several of his works released on CD. If you think that's not notable, then you didn't understand WP:COMPOSER. Prime Blue (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the albums he composed and i could check managed to make into the Oricon's Top 300 albums chart. He composed the music for DBZs that's rich but none was a hit in the chart so now knowing that is he a notable composer? For the albums, he officiated as arranger that another story but we don't have a set of guideline for notable arranger. --KrebMarkt17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you were being serious. If charts are the scale for notability of music now, then you'll have quite a lot of CD release and artist articles to flag for deletion. Also, you keep saying he is mostly arranging rather than composing. That's simply not true if you check the facts. He is the composer for Super Butōden, Super Butōden 2, Super Butōden 3, Super Goku Den — Totsugeki-Hen, some other games and new tracks in Dragon Ball Kai. Prime Blue (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice the world outside the DBZ franchise exists ;) See: that 編曲者 = Arranger & 作曲者 = Composer/Writing. He is doing mostly arrangement rather than composition. --KrebMarkt12:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to make a point, I clearly don't get it. I don't see how his arrangement work would make him any less notable a composer than before. He composes music himself. Prime Blue (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is an arranger first and a composer second. That doesn't make him less notable but accuracy require people to stop viewing him as just the guy who did DBZ music. Another point, i must ask you why Super Butōden, Super Butōden 2, Super Butōden 3, Super Goku Den — Totsugeki-Hen are notable? Answering something like because it's DBZ would be a poor answer. --KrebMarkt16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not because "it's DBZ", but because those are professional compositions which have been released on CD. Not to mention they were released by companies that published the work of other notable artists. Prime Blue (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the notability of his work as a composer is what is disputed right now. WP:COMPOSER does not define what a "notable composition" is, that's why it's POV until it's clarified. KrebMarkt defines it as something that made it into the charts, I define it as works by professional composers whose occupation it is to create music and who had CD releases of their compositions. From KrebMarkt's standpoint, I don't see how Kōji Kondō meets KrebMarkt's notability criteria either (at least I didn't find any of his works in the charts on the Oricon site, just some track lists), so I'd encourage you to flag that article for deletion, too. Prime Blue (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in Kōji Kondō's case the interview from Ign & 1up and not counting the others make him notable.
Back to Kenji Yamamoto, there are still avenues to prove his notability, one is look for coverage on his person. 2 non-trivial papers where he is the central subject would do providing there are from reliable sources. Easier, look for games reviews & games music reviews if his name is mentioned explicitly numerous times by various reliable sources you may try to sell the noteworthy for video games reviewers argument. --KrebMarkt16:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NM states Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an articlemustbe deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an articlemustbe kept. But I found a review doing just a quick search anyway. If you're already thinking about the next step, I suggest to go here. Prime Blue (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC, or more specificity WP:NSONG, does state what makes a notable composition or song. All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. . . . Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. And since WP:COMPOSER is a subsection of WP:MUSIC dealing specifically with the notability of composers, then it is very much relevant. --Farix (Talk) 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All articles on albums, singles or songsmust meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.
That is the first flaw with your reasoning. The second being, you're arguing in circles. You're basing the notability of a composer off the notability of his song and album articles, which would itself again be dependent on the notability of its composer in this case, as WP:NM goes on to state:
In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. [...] Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
By your argument, that would mean that each musician listed on Wikipedia would have to have at least one notable song or album article to make the musician article notable itself, although WP:NM claims the opposite for artists without songs or compositions that made it into the charts. Prime Blue (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of hand-waving on the keep side about how there are plenty of sources if somebody would just add them, little actual presentation of said sources. See also WP:GNUM. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It didn't take me long to find Kenji Yamamoto's recording studio website [14], it has a bunch of info on there including his works, who he works with, etc...someone needs to expand this. -- DBHighDef (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with the use of selfpublished sources in this context but they don't go towards establishing notability per the general guideline which specifically requires sources "Independent of the subject" - which excludes such works. The purpose of the management site is to promote the individual - a service I imagine they are paid for - it should not be the basis of an article. I went "back" to WP:BIO as I'm not convinced the individual meets any of the specific criteria set out in WP:COMPOSER; his compositions appear in games which are certainly notable and on albums which may well be notable but I'm not convinced the compositions themselves are notable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (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.
Keep - Main article should be recreated, as Osaka Pro Wrestling is a notable promotion. Speedy deletion was inappropriate, as time should have ben given for the article to be expanded to establish notability. The tag team division, which includes such wrestlers as Jushin Liger (rated the #12 wrestler in the world for the cumulative period spanning 1991-2000), is also notable and discussed in reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article and the article on the promotion are different articles, and the article on the title is not dependent on the promotion's article. The promotion's article should be re-created, but its current existence or lack thereof is not relevant here. Remember that there is no time limit taken into account during deletion discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't you go to DRV with that issue? You're undermining your own argument by not doing so. The article here is related to the deleted article, and is very much dependent on it when it comes to consistency. Why keep a title of a promotion that doesn't have an article on the promotion? How about getting the DRV going if you're serious about that. GetDumb07:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent more than enough time at DRV lately rescuing other articles. I'm in the middle of another major project right now and don't have the time or energy, nor am I interested in the conflict and animosity that flow so freely there. If the championship article is kept, the promotion's article will be re-created (remember WP:NOTIMELIMIT?). If you would like, of course, you are more than welcome to take the promotion's article to DRV or to rewrite it from the beginning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTIMELIMIT is not policy. It's an essay only. I've never heard of the promotion so right now I think it shouldn't be here. It's up to you to prove it should, not me. You made the claims. GetDumb23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE is policy. Your comment "I've never heard of the promotion so right now I think it shouldn't be here" is a terrible inclusion rationale for any Encyclopedia. If Wikipedia only held what I know, or had heard of, it would be very, very limited. Admittedly, I cant find refs either, other than VHS tape of some major games, but maybe language bias is the reason. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @278 · 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NSPORT offers virtually zero guidance on the notability of sports leagues or even individual wrestlers, although you can infer that "major" pro leagues are considered notable. Osaka Pro Wrestling would seem to qualify, as it has a substantial article in Japanese (see ja:大阪プロレス), with the championship winners list (== this article) here. I would suggest DRV'ing the main article and putting this on hold until that's sorted out. Jpatokal (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That is exactly what I thought, language bias. Unfortunately, Google translate cannot help me, a web-address with Japanese characters is reported to me as "invalid". Wikipedia itself is not a valid RS - so perhaps you could you say if there are RS in the Japanese article, does it meet WP:V?, as this would permit this AfD to close as keep, giving time to editors to transfer the sources. Also, could you give a link to the Japanese version of Osaka Pro Wrestling and inform if there are RS there as well, as this will ease the DRV process greatly. Thanks again for your prompt reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? The Japanese version is at ja:大阪プロレス, although (as usual on ja-WP) it's poorly referenced, with only a single site to Osaka Nichi-Nichi Shimbun (which I'd judge a RS). A search for 大阪プロレス on your favorite Japanese news search engine, eg. Yahoo, returns dozens of hits to various Japanese sports mags covering their events. Jpatokal (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2009 (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
Templates
Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template
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.
Fujiko Kano "The subject of this article fails the WP:Pornbio criteria for Notability, and otherwise does not appear to meet general standards of Notability."
Michie Ito "Unreferenced, unable to establish notability"
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
SpeedyDelete Vandalism or fake,hoaxes. Please see Vfd on jawp and craters blocked log on jawp.--FREEZA (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
