This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Japan|sig=~~~~}} 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:
Former holding company with content already included in subsidiary articles Update6 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep We don't delete articles about previous companies just because they're now controlled by someone else. Nathannah • 📮 00:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Notability tagged for two years. A footballer who played in the weak S League, not picking up any tangible SIGCOV while there, and lower Japanese leagues. Geschichte (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete — Could only really find this , which indirectly mentions him. Not even close enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETEPublicwalrus (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
The sources of the article are the persons own blog, a couple of podcast appearances, store listings, and a single review on a niche beat-making blog (which was also reposted on a second blog). The PROD was contested on the grounds that some sources are secondary, is 1 small blog review significant coverage? Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG and I couldn't find any music coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. IndrasBet (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Gsearch only brings up Simpsons episodes or bandcamp and other musical/streaming sites. GNews brings up not much else... This act has existed since 2011, yet we have no coverage of them, very good indicator of non-notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The references are the artist's blog, podcasts, store pages and one small review later reposted elsewhere. There is no significant independent coverage for WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onatic (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep previously existing administrative divisions are still notable, and a look at the Japanese page suggests this can be expanded (on length only, I cannot read Japanese) SportingFlyerT·C 07:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article demonstrates very little notability and does not meet WP:THREE. It is currently cited by four primary sources and one India Today blurb that has no author and only 90 words in the body, short of WP:100WORDS. While not a reason for deletion, I also think it's worth noting that this article details a very specific event that does not have it's own article for previous years of the Asian Para Games. To avoid giving undue weight, I propose redirecting this article to Athletics at the 2026 Asian Para Games rather than merging. Johnson524 17:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUMS, and likely WP:GNG (due to scope). The album's been, at best, mentioned in passing by reliable sources in Japanese, but that's mostly just from advertising campaigns or products. No standalone notable coverage exists in English or Japanese. travismulch 05:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, charting isn't everything, of course. The lack of standalone notability/coverage has more of a bearing here, so it's probably worth the merge. travismulch 17:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NALBUM#2. Charting isn't everything, but it also is not nothing. This is a 30 year old Japanese album, we do not have access to Japanese musical press from that time, and so cannot really establish whether reviews exist. But charting makes it far more likely that they do. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
This doesn't reflect the lack of standalone, notable coverage about the album. I speak Japanese and already did an in-depth look into existing sourcing before starting the AfD. This is why I didn't AfD Uchū Nippon Setagaya, which also charted on Oricon, because that coverage does exist. The implied existence of sources isn't good enough. They have to be found first, and I was unable to find that. Basically all ongoing coverage of the album is either Japanese SEO spam, store pages, or at best for "sources"... ...I saw fc2 blog posts, which are self-published sources. I'll ask that you find sources which defend keeping. travismulch 01:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Another reason to think that the coverage exists is that the article says, In September 2007, Rolling Stone Japan ranked Kuchu Camp No.8 on its list of the "100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time". Did you search for reviews in the Japanese musical press of the 1990s? In any case, an SNG pass is a good enough reason to keep the page. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'll ask again that you find the sources in question. I've already looked within my means, and found almost nothing.
A brief mention in a best albums list, or charting one time, does not constitute significant coverage. NEXIST says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". We can't assume "Well, it must have been written about!" without evidence. travismulch 15:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It looks like there is quite a bit of coverage in 僕と魚のブルーズ 評伝フィッシュマンズ, a book that seems to be an independent source. Dekimasuよ! 11:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As a fan of the band, I can tell you that the author, Daisuke Kawasaki, was a long-time friend of the band, particularly for promotional material and advertising. This is not a source independent of the subject, per WP:GNG. travismulch 15:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It should be noted AllMusic does not count towards notability "Without accompanying prose", the Fishmans website is a self-published source, and Discogs is generally unreliable & user-generated. This calls 3/6 sources into question, with the other 3 being a chart, a single brief mention, leaving only a singular reliable source (Natalie). The source quality was already dubious. travismulch 15:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. To my eyes this clears NALBUM on the basis of charting, coverage on the Rolling Stoneand Exclaim lists list of best Japanese albums, as well as this review which seems to have been missed, as well as the book - i don't actually think being written by a friend of the band disqualifies it as not independent of the subject. tomasz. 19:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
My mistake - the Exclaim article is actually just a report on the Rolling Stone list, so i've struck that. However, we also have an in-depth article on the album commissioned for Tower Records' music magazine Mikiki; a special issue of a magazine devoted to the band which contains coverage of their whole discography; a Japan Times profile which calls it an "undisputed [landmark] in the Japanese rock canon"; an in-depth article on the album from a Japanese pop culture site named Popmaster, which may or may not be a reliable source, but certainly looks like one; and, per the Japanese article, placement as one of the top 200 albums released in the first 40 years of the Japanese rock magazine Music Magazine in their 40th anniversary special edition; as number 3 in the Snoozer's 150 Greatest Albums of Japanese Rock 'n' Roll published by the Japanese music magazine SNOOZER in 2007 (though, clearly, it would be better to find the original publication of this rather than a user-generated site's repost of the list); and as number 8 in the 2015 book The 100 Best Japanese Rock Albums by Daisuke Kawasaki, who is, of course, the same author mentioned above – though to my mind, the fact that the book is an overview of Japanese rock albums in general and not about Fishmans specifically makes it even harder to write off as a non-independent source. Further, this link asserts that the album "[earned] favorable reviews from various media", so unless they're just lying about that, we must assume that, as Kelob2678 says above, such coverage does in fact exist but we just don't have access to it online, probably owing to it having been published 30 years ago. tomasz. 20:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, admittedly, namu is kinda bullshit and this sort of thing should be confirmed independently. Not the biggest fan of Popmaster by the looks of it, looks like an advertising agency. Sputnik is just okay. I can't say I'm the biggest fan of how closely affiliated with Tower Records the rest of the independent coverage is. The rest of the sources, are, well, mentions (especially ones we can't actually verify). This may be a borderline keep, then. travismulch 01:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. No reliable source coverage online in either English or Japanese. 3 sources are currently used: RateYourMusic (deprecated), a random student newspaper (twice, duplicated), and an off-hand mention in an article about a different album. Article content is almost entirely unsourced. travismulch 05:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
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:
