Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

Shortcuts

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.

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 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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Japan-related AfDs

Scan for Japan-related Prods
Scan for Japan-related template TfDs

See also:

Japan

Murder of Aiwa Matsuo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how that event/person meets WP:GNG/WP:VICTIM. There was some news coverage when this happened, and then - nothing. My BEFORE finds only one passing mention in a single academic article. Pehraps better sources exist in Japanese, but to quote an editor who recently commented about this on pl wiki: "The extensive Japanese article is over 90% a description of the event and investigation, a long section discussing the family background, and a long section discussing expert opinions on what might have led to the murder. A small section on the aftermath lists: a special assembly at the school attended by the victim and murderer, the introduction of an annual assembly at the school about the value of life combined with a minute of silence, the appearance of an online post about the murder that turned out to be unrelated to the crime, the cancellation of an episode of a Fuji TV series, the slightly modified content of one of the episodes of a Fuji TV program, the posting of a photo of the murdered woman on the Sasebo city website, information about a joke about the woman murdered during a rap duel, and an entry on a website about haunted places stating that the murderer's father's house was haunted. Each Wikipedia has its own standards, but it is clear that in this case the Japanese one is closer to [a gossip website]". Not all crime covered by news is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning against deletion: The article cites 24 sources, which is a substantial amount. The topic was discussed in some depth in major international sources, not just local publications. This includes The Telegraph, The Washington Post, The Guardian / Agence France-Presse, two articles in The Japan News (Yomiuri Shimbum), five articles in Mainichi Shimbum, and seven articles in The Japan Times. Those articles generally have some depth – e.g., a whole article is devoted to the subject rather than being casually mentioned as an example in an article about some other subject. Nearly all of the cited sources are in English, providing further evidence this is not just a local topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kimiidera Park

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2006. Japanese wiki page lacks WP:SIGCOV. Couldn't find anything significant, although searching in Japanese is not my strong suit. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV exists. Most souces are minor tourism based sites. Kvinnen (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sport of athletics, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think 紀三井寺運動公園陸上競技場 is the correct Japanese article, not the one that's linked in the current English article. There seems to be some coverage of it on GScholar results discussing sports facilities in Japan but I won't be able to make much progress with those articles. Oblivy (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsu Hatta Station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2003. Fails WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in the sources used in foreign language wikis from what I can tell. The materials are predominantly about the Kintetsu Nagoya Line and not predominantly about this individual station on that line. Suggest redirecting to Kintetsu Nagoya Line per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Transportation. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daiichi University, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page lacks any sources, even on the Japanese Wikipedia page. This page therefore in my perspective fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Japan. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an accreditation report for the university, these are usually prepared by the government. It was also profiled in a Japanese chemistry journal. And was covered in the news. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumori Station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2003. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it exists. The Japanese wiki has mostly primary sources/timetables/maps... Nothing I'd use to show notability. I tried the station name and Kasumori-eki in my searches, beyond timetables and Expedia listings, nothing to show notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kintetsu Nagoya Line, which has a sourced history of the line, and probably gives a better indication of where the station is and what it connects to. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a !redirect to the article about the rail line would be fine as well. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kintetsu Nagoya Line: No SIGCOV in RS. The Japanese article doesn't show anything notable about this station either. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Theravada Buddhist Association

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was generated with AI by a now indeffed creator (for AI usage), draftification was objected to. The last AFD did nor deal with these issues. Full of OR and the references cannot be trusted. Many of the sources do not exist and are AI fabrications. WP:TNT is applicable due to the amounts of OR and AI. Nothing here is salvageable, so it cannot be repaired with normal editing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Buddhism, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

~~Keep. This article has already been reviewed before and it contains real references to the Japan Theravada Buddhist Association. Aside from the Google Maps links, most things work fine~~

~~Case in point:~~

~~https://www.undv.org/vesak2012/research/006_kieko_obuse.pdf~~

~~https://avery.morrow.name/studies/theravada-in-japan.pdf~~

Most of these links are not broken. The trouble is that most Japanese news organizations also delete their news articles soon after they are posted online, so it is difficult to find non-primary articles online. MoonersWhite (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Katzrockso (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Notability is not the issue at stake here, but that the vast, vast majority of the article [1] is unreviewed AI content from an editor who admitted they did not check their citations and was trying to make articles as fast as possible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But in the case of this specific article, it seems that others have reviewed this article for citations and accuracy and concluded that the citations are accurate. MoonersWhite (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Katzrockso (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Judging from the page history, they have not. There has been some minor copyediting by one editor but no significant changes in the page's content. A few sources were removed but the vast majority of the page is the same kind of content, and what is verifiable is sourced purely to their own site. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, it is tough to find secondary articles for Japanese news sources do the fact that those are often taken down by the news agencies that put them up, soon after posting them. Therefore, it is tough to rely on sources outside of primary ones. MoonersWhite (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Katzrockso (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

That it's hard is not an excuse and if acceptable sources do not exist that is an indication we should not have the article at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. This was already nominated for deletion just 2 months ago and the article was kept due to the topic having significant coverage in secondary sources.

WP:TNT is not a policy-based solution. I have started working on removing the hallucinated content, and will continue to work on it, but WP:AFD is not cleanup and this is definitely a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. Even cutting this down to a stub would be preferrable to deletion. Katzrockso (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the claim that "nothing here is salvageable", this is not correct. I attempted to verify some statements, some of which were not supported by the links or the links did not work. But this sentence "Shaku Kōnen later established the short-lived Shakuson Shōfūkai, or "Shakyamuni True Dharma Society," which consisted of five monks and sought to introduce Theravāda teachings to the Japanese public" was verified by the source provided. I am sure there are other errors/issues with the article, but these would best remedied through editing (whether that be removing large swathes of the material that fails verification or reducing to a stub), not deletion. I also added sourced, verifiable information to the infobox.

Yes, this article needs extensive work, but AfD is not the place to conduct such work. Katzrockso (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso After digging into this: Yes, and that cited source does not once mention the Japan Theravada Buddhist Association. In fact, after checking, not one of the books cited here did, not one of the journal articles, except for the Morrow piece and this [2]. They were cited to background information, but were actually SYNTH. I actually don't think this is notable at all. Outside of the primary sources to the group itself, there is nothing. The Avery Morrow piece is an unpublished undergraduate paper. The second piece is fine, appears to be in a decent journal. Searching for more book sources I found two passing mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every cited source needs to include the words "Japan Theravada Buddhist Association". Where is the SYNTH in the sentence I quoted?

No, Avery Morrow is an WP:EXPERTSPS. He is a published academic on Buddhism ([3]) whose very work on this topic in particular has received WP:USEBYOTHERS. There is also, as I noted in the first AfD, several paragraphs about this organization in Globalizing Asian Religions. The chapter cites more research in Japanese that we cannot access on the organization. So we have WP:THREE sources here, not "nothing". Katzrockso (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso He became an expert later, but someone becoming qualified later doesn't make their unpublished undergraduate papers reliable sources. And yes, every source that counts for notability needs to mention the subject of the article. Building an article around sources that do not mention it is WP:SYNTH, as it is combining material to "state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", that this background has anything to do with the organization in question. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth the AI is no longer a problem at least so I am mostly ambivalent now. That book + the one OK journal article is an edge case, so having this as a short cited stub would be fine perhaps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At that point in time, he was a student at Antioch College in the Buddhist Studies program, yes. It has received WP:USEBYOTHERS. Even discounting it, we have in Morrow's paper the mention of this source "akashi Naoko. 「日本におけるテーラワーダ仏教実践者の回心プロセスと死生」観 (“Theravada Buddhist Movement in Japan”). Construction of Life and Death Studies 7 (2006), p. 487 (58)–482 (85).", which was described by Morrow as "Naoko Takashi (高橋尚子) did an in-depth study of JBTA members in 2004 and 2005, which was published in abbreviated form in 2006". I would think an "in-depth study of JBTA members" which was published in an academic journal is definitely SIGCOV in IRS, even if we cannot access it. I recall looking for this source during the last AfD.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the source in question counts towards notability, I was merely pointing out that the sentence in question is salvageable. Katzrockso (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I noted in the last AfD, "He cites a study of the group in Japanese - an article by Naoko Takashi from 2006, published in an academic journal", and "On the Japanese language version of the article for Arabomulle Sumanasara, I also find a newspaper cited Weekly Asahi (jp), seemingly about Theravada Buddhism in Japan." Katzrockso (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EXPERTSPS requires having had your works published in reliable outlets, which he did not have when he wrote it. He could write EXPERTSPS sources now but this does not apply retroactively to works he produced before he was qualified. Those other sources may be fine which is why I said it would may be acceptable to have this in its trimmed down form but I do not think that piece is an RS. (Also yeah finding Japanese academia can be painful...) PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as an ATD, topic is plausibly notable but an article with such AI issues should not stay in the mainspace. मल्ल (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like this file contains sigcov in Japanese (日本テーラワーダ仏教協会). Kelob2678 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this additional source that has WP:SIGCOV of this notable organization. Machine translated, it states:

Even though it is also a foreign religion of the Theravada Buddhist system, the Japan Theravada Buddhist Association, a Sri Lankan Buddhist organization, has a completely different character from the Dhammakaya temple mentioned above. Theravada Buddhism is a term that means Theravada Buddhism itself, but this association is merely one sect within Theravada Buddhism. Although I used the term "Sri Lankan," there is no organization in Sri Lanka that serves as the headquarters of this association; this organization is basically a unique Japanese organization. The Japan Theravada Buddhist Association was founded in 1994 in Tokyo by Japanese followers surrounding the Venerable Alubomulle Sumanāsara, a high-ranking monk from Sri Lanka. In 2001, they built the "Gotami Vihara" in Shibuya, Tokyo, which has since served as the headquarters and the center of the organization's operations. They registered as a religious corporation in 2003, and opened the Osaka branch, "Arana Vihara," in 2005. Furthermore, in 2009, they opened their third facility, "Mayadevi Vihara," in Sanda, Hyogo Prefecture.

There are three additional paragraphs about the organization and its founder.

The article 海外におけるミャンマー上座部仏教僧院の役割に関する調査研究: 日本を事例に, published in The Bulletin of Nagasaki Junior College, has another paragraph on this organization as well. Machine-translated, it reads:

Gotami Vihara was established by the Japan Theravada Buddhist Association (a religious corporation) with the purpose of spreading the teachings of the Buddha to many people. Under the guidance of elders dispatched from Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Myanmar, it operates primarily in Hatagaya, Tokyo, and in various locations throughout Japan. Its main regular activities include Vipassana meditation and Dharma talks (day trips), monthly lectures on early Buddhism, Pali scripture commentary/Abhidhamma lectures, residential Vipassana meditation retreats, and independent meditation/study groups. More information can be found at "http://gotami.j-theravada.net/"

There are an additional 110 results on Google Scholar for the string "日本テーラワーダ仏教協会" (not all of which is independent), so I assume there is a more coverage we might be able to obtain. Katzrockso (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (2027 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to satisfy WP:NFF. When the article was created, the film hadn't entered production, and the sources say the film is still being pitched. Clearly therefore fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per pressumed as no surety of completion of the film. --SaTnamZIN (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON, there is not even an official release date listed. The project might not happen, who knows? It will probably be notable the closer we get to the release date. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's note: I would have proposed 'Draftify' as an alternative to deletion, but the page creator - who has new page patroller rights - had already moved the page back to mainspace after it had been previously draftified. I therefore literally couldn't use the automated tool to re-draftify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an WP:ATD-I per nom's original preference. All we know is that this exists as a potential project that has concept art used to try and find someone to distribute it at the Annecy festival, which is what all three sources (dated the same) are reporting on. We have no actual production information that confirms that WP:NFF is met. This is also labeled as a working title. That's not reason to draftify alone since it can always be moved to the final title, but it further contributes to the project being in its infancy. It can be re-published if/when sources report on the progress of final animation frames or voice work specified in NFF. -2pou (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete it but take it away for now as a future potentially high box office film, tell the user you can bring back the article in 2027 but take it off the main space for now and send it back to the draftspace and wait 1-2 years until the movie is released AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is way too soon for an article. Felicia (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Per above. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soul of Chogokin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded because the article contains only a list of toys and a basic description (WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:PLOTONLY), with almost no sources. The PROD rationale was contested because it suggested other options may exist, but it did not elaborate:

I think this page is starting to get very bloated seeing that it is just doing nothing but just list down some new releases to buy. Would probably want this one deleted per wiki rules but I guess it depends if some people would go through it.
— User:Blackgaia02 03:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The page has existed in this state since creation in 2006, and it has been tagged for notability since 2016. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Lists, and Japan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I said myself. I could agree for a deletion or merging without the Chogokin article itself and remove the catalogue itself. More importantly, it needs to have some reliable source too about its history. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its not really worth keeping a list of toys. Catfurball (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiketsu Noutenki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toGainax#Daicon_tokusatsu_fan_films, a section that lists some of them.--~2025-38537-34 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kakumagawa, Akita

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:GNG. Even if sources are found, this probably would be better covered at Daisen, Akita per WP:NOPAGE. Suggest redirecting or merging there per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. This qualifies as a "populated, legally recognized place" under WP:NSETTLEMENT. Notability is not temporary, and sources do exist, both online and offline, including those listed on the Japanese Wikipedia page and the summary at the Daisen City. This was also the site of a significant battle during the Boshin War, ja:角間川の戦い. Dekimasuよ! 16:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. But as Daisen, Akita is literally the same location and the website you shared is the Daisen city website we can reasonably cover it there per WP:NOPAGE. There isn't a good reason editorially to have two separate standalone articles; particularly when this article has zero sources and is a stub. 4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect per nom! ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Actually, the Japanese version has a decent amount that might be translatable. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this incident meets general notability standards. It also is already referenced in at least one other article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft) and, as such, contributes to greater understanding of context for contained engine failures in commercial flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranhandler (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 803

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and is a WP:COOKIE. This accident seems non-notable because engine failures like this have no value/worth to cover by us. It's relatively a minor accident/incident. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Japan, and Washington, D.C.. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This incident was involved in a large plane (Boeing 777), even tho it was just a engine failure, the incident was similar to other incidents, almost like British Airways Flight 2276 or Korean Air Flight 2708 all three 777 incidents. This was important to the FAA and also it even causes smoke and fire on the runway! Jahndah (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahndah: I suggest you consider the ten-year test or twenty-year test. Just a suggestion. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And to build on that, here in the UK, although The Independent news website mentions it , it hasn't been picked up by either the BBC or The Guardian both of which are pretty hot on important news worldwide. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. An aircraft took off, a bit fell off, it circled for a bit and landed with no injuries and no further damager to aircraft itself. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS not a newspaper and this is just a one day news item that will be long forgotten in a few days time. --10mmsocket (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, except substantial damage to the aircraft does satisfy notability requirements, which was the main criterion I followed. According to the Transportation Secretary, the aircraft "experienced an engine cover separation that ignited the brush fire on the ground", which is hardly a normal occurrence. Saying that "a bit fell off" also makes it sound trivial. How much of the engine needs to fall off to qualify as substantial damage?

Just to clarify: I certainly won't go against the consensus once it's established, or if it turns out that these early reports were inaccurate, but I am quite simply wary of downplaying this incident based on assumptions. Per Exemplum 21:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or convert it to a redirect. This was a minor incident that does not justify a separate article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Run-of-the-mill incident, fails WP:EVENTCRIT#4, fails WP:GNG, no likelihood of continuing coverage beyond the initial news cycle, no likelihood of lasting effects. Not encyclopedic, fails the WP:10YEARTEST.Zaptain United (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Very minor aviation incident with no fatalities or injuries and minimal, if any, lasting impact. MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: routine incident covered by WP:EVENTCRIT#4, not notable unless something further gives [it] additional enduring significance, which isn't the case here. We should of course envisage alternatives to deletion but in this case even a redirect would not be warranted, as the incident is too minor to be noteworthy in either the airline or aircraft type article. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This is not a fatal event, but has received coverage from The Independent. A redirect to 2025 in aviation would suffice. 11WB (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a redirect to 2025 in aviation be justified? The incident isn't mentioned there, nor should it be, and redirects to an article where the redirect topic isn't mentioned are typically deleted. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the event it were to be added. Otherwise, my vote would be for deletion. 11WB (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would say Keep but redirect ~2025-41010-03 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a news website Felicia (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i need somehing to read. keep ~2025-41010-03 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
very bad argument Zaptain United (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRUH ~2025-41010-03 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
bro, are you serious? ~2025-41010-03 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey about you come up with a good argument for why this should be kept considering your "arguments", actually no these are just bad English, are just ???????? Zaptain United (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what are you saying? ~2025-41010-03 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what r u saying? ~2025-41010-03 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZU is saying your rationale for keeping lacks any legitimate reason. It would be advisable not to clog up the discussion with multiple short replies. 11WB (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay. im going dead silent now. ~2025-41010-03 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Mofford (director)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:GNG. No Significant Coverage in independent sources, page mostly consists of profiles. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 18:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 18:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, Japan, Spain, Caribbean, Puerto Rico, California, Georgia (U.S. state), Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Insufficient significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Afru (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese abbreviated and contracted words

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2005. This feels more like a grammar/foreign language textbook rather than encyclopedia entry, and I'm not sure that it truly is intelligible to people with no familiarity with Japanese and reading Japanese characters. Possibly fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but more broadly I think this fails WP:NOTGUIDE as it it seems to be doing the work of a language instructional manual.4meter4 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with some cleanup, but this is well covered in linguistics research (e.g. [4] [5] [6]) and TNT would be overkill. I'm not sure how an article on a linguistic feature in Japanese is supposed to both be intelligible to someone with no familiarity with the language, while also avoiding "doing the work of a language instructional manual". Keep. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point that this type of content is not in our scope. We are not a how to speak/read Japanese guide or a guide to Japanese grammar.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this rises to the level of a how-to guide (and one that cannot be addressed without TNT) you must be reading a different article. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add references. As a list of abbreviations this would fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but as an analysis of a linguistic phenomenon it is notable and encyclopedic. The article does not appear to be instructional to any great degree, and it is standard for articles on linguistics to contain examples. Dekimasuよ! 09:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu: Not that this really matters in the context of your vote, but that is a WP:MISUSEOFINDISCRIMINATE. This article doesn't fit any one of the four specific criteria nor the general criteria at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The general criteria is specific to data and this article is not data driven. Please re-read that policy if you haven't read it in a while. Editors need to stop and think before citing that policy as it is very specific to only these circumstances: data or RAWDATA (which this isn't), summary-only descriptions of works (which this also isn't), lyrics database (which this also isn't), and exhaustive logs of software updates (which this isn't). In short, INDISCRIMINATE is not applicable to this article's content. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly is not an exhaustive list, see MOS:TRIVIA's lead section for example. It would not be possible to list the infinite number of ways to collect data indiscriminately on Wikipedia, and the community's interpretation of the policy reflects this. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The policy as formed at the community discussion was specifically addressing raw data. The guideline language is clearly focused, and it doesn't leave room for an open-ended application in the way that you suggest. This policy is often mis-cited at AFD because editors assume indiscriminate applies to fancruft content, but in most cases that policy isn’t relevant at all to fancruft issues. We don’t add opinions into guidelines, we actually follow and apply the guideline as written.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, it is neither here nor there (and WP:NOT is a policy, not a guideline), but the root difference between the interpretations seems to be what constitutes "data". WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Absent contextualization, a collection of data is indiscriminate whether it is numerical or lexical. Other parts of the same section point directly to WP:NLIST; that specifically notes that the topic must be covered in independent sources as a "group or set", which was the crux of my comment. Best, Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly the language at NLIST is relevant; although I wouldn't call this page a list article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Dekimasu. Undoubtedly the article needs work but it's also notable and encyclopedic. Gommeh 📖 🎮 18:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Added a few very basic sources myself but this meets WP:GNG and/or wp: NLIST as having received coverage as a set. Everyone remotely familiar with the Japanese language or Japan understands this is an important societal and linguistic phenomenon.--~2025-38537-34 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Haruka Iwao

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Let's try this again. This article was nominated at AFD about 6 years ago which was closed as no consensus (although I think there was at least a rough consensus to delete even then). The primary concern here is that this was a case of WP:BLP1E, surrounding a fairly minor achievement that made the rounds in the popular press and then quickly died out again. The intervening years have only solidified this view, as I can find no real additional coverage of Iwao, especially independent of this one event (doing a record-setting calculation of the digits of pi). That record has been surpassed at least 3 times since this article was written, once by Iwao again, and twice by two others. It's also worth noting that this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power and time at it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and Computing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is impeccably referenced and the subject's claim to fame justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. I would also respectfully disagree with the assertion that "this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive." Capt. Milokan (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references are irrelevant in the face of WP:BLP1E. And there is no real claim to fame here. It's a fairly trivial accomplishment in the wake of ever-increasing available computing power, that made the rounds for a week or so because it coincided with Pi Day, and made a for a nice light-news-day type story. After that, it quickly faded; there's been no lasting coverage or impact on anything. Something like this doesn't magically endow one with the right to inclusion on Wikipedia. She didn't develop the algorithm to compute pi; she didn't write the program to compute pi; she just ran it. This is a nothing burger. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was hoping time would have helped put this one in perspective, but let me elaborate by reiterating the salient part of BLP1E:
We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
Number 1 is pretty clear and I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. As for number 2, after this was over, there's been no coverage of Iwao, so she has pretty clearly remained a low-profile individual. Number 3 is probably the most arguable, but as I pointed out above; this is not a particularly impressive accomplishment. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power at y-cruncher. This record has been broken 3 times in the the 6 years since, and will likely be broken more times as computing power increases and people with the resources to do it feel like doing it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Pi#Modern_quest_for_more_digits or alternatively Chronology_of_computation_of_π seems reasonable, because her name and achievement are documented in both places; by all means merge a few extra references across if readers are likely to be interested in her personal background. Elemimele (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Guinness record isn't notable, by itself... Some coverage in the BBC [7], CBS News [8] and the WaPo [9], I'd say that amounts to a one-time notability for the event, so a case if 1E. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She set a record, there was a bunch of press about it (e.g. NPR and BBC). She set the record again three years later, there was again a bunch of press about it (e.g. Fast Company and Engadget). That's not BLP1E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chronology of computation of π. The available sources are typical pop-science clickbait/silly season material, and that's just not good enough. I agree with the assessment above that using a pre-existing implementation of a pre-existing algorithm and just running it on a bigger computer is not a stand-out achievement. Of the available redirect targets, Chronology of computation of π has the most mentions of Iwao and is least likely to see those mentions removed in a future condensation. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to gauge what is or is not a "stand-out achievement" is WP:OR. We defer to reliable sources to determine what's worthy of note -- and what's worthy of note may not be the most impressive achievement to someone in the field. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more WP:OR than most of the evaluations that happen during an AfD: judging whether sources are reliable, whether coverage is "significant", etc. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is. The standard is WP:N, which is based on sourcing, and we evaluate sourcing according to another set of criteria at WP:RS. "Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is basically WP:GNG, which is one of the ways to be considered notable. There no "dismiss top-tier news sources if you know the Truth about the experiment not being impressive enough to confer notable" guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have BLP1E to consider, which I think very clearly does point us away from having an article for Iwao. As does WP:ANYBIO, for which this very much fails to meet. But we also do have some latitude to exercise a little common sense and editorial discretion over what "notability" is...and here, we a little bit of very light news coverage of a record-setting pi computation, along with some surface-level interviews with the person who pushed the button on the computer to execute it. This just doesn't cut it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have BLP1E to consider - Why? Press coverage for two records, three years apart per my !vote. If those two events are somehow BLP1E because they're for the same thing, I suppose athletes are broadly BLP1E as they just play the same sport over and over. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same basic event twice. Having your record broken and then taking it back doesn't cut it. Besides, the coverage is of the event, not the person. And even that fails WP:NEVENT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hence not one event. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A !redirect to the "Chronology" article as suggested above, would be fine, as an ATD. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable Codonified (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTABLE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chronology of computation of π per Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction. Most of the media coverage features Google heavily since the mathematics community and the journalists are aware that this achievement is mostly due to computing power. Rolluik (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chronology of computation of π. This is not WP:BLP1E because she set the record twice. However the coverage is about the record, not her. This is why the article sources parts of its biographical information from Twtter, blogs, and Linkedin. If trimmed, the article would be almost a duplicate of the redirect target. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been in-depth coverage about her on NPR and in Pink News, and her work popularizing cloud computing is just enough to get her past WP:BARE. The article needs copy editing, but normal processes can fix it. AfD is not primarily about making fixes like that. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inline with the above recommendations / reasoning. CaptainAngus (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

Contents

Japan

Murder of Aiwa Matsuo

Kimiidera Park

Kintetsu Hatta Station

Daiichi University, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Kasumori Station

Japan Theravada Buddhist Association

Ghost (2027 film)

Soul of Chogokin

Kaiketsu Noutenki

Kakumagawa, Akita

United Airlines Flight 803

Eric Mofford (director)

Japanese abbreviated and contracted words

Emma Haruka Iwao

Categories

Images

Templates

Redirects

Proposed deletions