- 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. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Anti-Japaneseism
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Anti-Japaneseism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is being nominated for deletion because I could not find any reliable sources that even mention the subject of this article. Also, none of the sources cited in this article are linked. So, this article might be a complete hoax that has been around for about 10 years straight. Hemanth Nalluri 11 ( Talk) 3:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the article is a translation of a well-sourced article on ja.wiki that has been extensively edited by multiple editors since 2008. Mccapra ( talk) 07:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Mccapra is bang on the money here. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep given the sourcing on the Japanese version. As a comment, it is never a good sign when an editor has been involved in more AFDs (four) than the number of days they've been on Wikipedia (three). Editor may wish to review policies and conduct a thorough check WP:BEFORE nominating at AFD again, particularly given the error in this nomination. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Mccapra and MaxnaCarter. This is a clear WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 ( talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as there are sufficient Japanese language sources. Fulmard ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Everyone, let's make a source assessment table for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The issue is whether the ideology is documented by reliable sources, and Mccapra and MaxnaCarter have confirmed that it is. More generally, the existence of a hateful ideology is never an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Reliable sources are required, and have been shown to exist. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Anti-Japaneseism
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Anti-Japaneseism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is being nominated for deletion because I could not find any reliable sources that even mention the subject of this article. Also, none of the sources cited in this article are linked. So, this article might be a complete hoax that has been around for about 10 years straight. Hemanth Nalluri 11 ( Talk) 3:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the article is a translation of a well-sourced article on ja.wiki that has been extensively edited by multiple editors since 2008. Mccapra ( talk) 07:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Mccapra is bang on the money here. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep given the sourcing on the Japanese version. As a comment, it is never a good sign when an editor has been involved in more AFDs (four) than the number of days they've been on Wikipedia (three). Editor may wish to review policies and conduct a thorough check WP:BEFORE nominating at AFD again, particularly given the error in this nomination. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Mccapra and MaxnaCarter. This is a clear WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 ( talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as there are sufficient Japanese language sources. Fulmard ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Everyone, let's make a source assessment table for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The issue is whether the ideology is documented by reliable sources, and Mccapra and MaxnaCarter have confirmed that it is. More generally, the existence of a hateful ideology is never an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Reliable sources are required, and have been shown to exist. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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.