Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese people in France

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people in France

[edit]
Japanese people in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject of this article has no merit. It is neither unique nor especially relevant. There are foreign nationals residing in all countries, and this article shall set a presedent for all permutations to exist. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the nominator's argument that "this article shall set a presedent for all permutations to exist" is just an extension of the usual WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS/WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST fallacy. Any human migration articles created in the future stand or fall based on the general notability guideline, not on the basis of this article. cab (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vague appeals to your own sense of "unencyclopedability" are unconvincing. Quite a few specialist encyclopedias from reputable publishers see fit to cover the topic of "Fooians in Barland" for a wide variety of values of Foo and Bar. To give a small sample:
  • Pan, Lynn, ed. (1995), The Encyclopedia of the Chinese Overseas, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0674252202
  • Inouye, Daniel K., ed. (2002), Encyclopedia of Japanese Descendants in the Americas: An Illustrated History of the Nikkei, Rowman Altamira, ISBN 978-0-75910149-4
  • Ember, Marvin; Ember, Carol R.; Haggard, Martin, eds. (2005), Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Overviews and Topics, Springer, ISBN 978-0306483219
  • Magocsi, Paul R., ed. (1998), Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 0802029388
  • Jupp, James, ed. (2001), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-52180789-0
Regards, cab (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am very leery of keeping an article based on sources which are almost entirely in a foreign language; this complicates questions of determining notability, verifiability, etc., to say the least. Furthermore, I would note that while I cannot read Japanese (and thus run the very real risk of mischaracterizing the sources), the English descriptions of the sources undercut the case for the subject's notability. It appears that the sources are, in order, a pamphlet from the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs (such as one might find for every country, giving only basic statistics and almost no narrative description, almost like a page out of a census), a short one to two-paragraph article in a Japanese newspaper, a single article testifying to the "invisibility" of the Japanese in France (hardly convincing evidence of notability), and three academic journal articles, which cannot be considered secondary sources for the general reader by any stretch. RayAYang (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. Apologies; are we reading the same policy? All I see is a remark to the effect that English language sources are to be preferred over non-English ones, and it certainly doesn't extend to questions of notability. RayAYang (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What you see is that, for verifiability, English language sources are to be preferred over non-English ones "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". If such English sources are not available then foreign language ones are fine. As far as notability goes there is nothing in the guidelines about the language of sources because notability doesn't depend on the language. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's what I thought. It doesn't say anything about foreign language sources being as good as English language sources for notability purposes, in either direction, and is more or less agnostic on the question of verifiability. After reflection, I conclude that I stand by my original comment, including the parts on the quality of the existing sources, which, IMO amount to less than substantial coverage. RayAYang (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Guyanese
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Jamaican
I will change my "vote" if someone can help me understand how and why this article is distinguished from the others? My "vote" is partly informed by the following:
For me, this subject is not an easy one to parse. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the fact that this has actual sources which discuss the topic non-trivially. Please read and understand WP:N. cab (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. I will review WP:N later today. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Japanese_people_in_France&oldid=1069220779"