Edge Rewrite
restyle Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
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:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Japan-related AfDs

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

See also:


Japan

[edit]

Astral Voyage (album)

[edit]


Astral Voyage (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A different article about this album was previously listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenkai (aka Astral Voyage), where it was closed as redirect due to lack of evidence that the article subject is notable. Apparently, someone created a new article under another title, but there is still no evidence of notability. Listing at AfD instead of redirecting per WP:G4 as it has been over a decade since the previous AfD. Stefan2 (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Star Seed

[edit]


Star Seed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Hula Hoop (Loona song) as the article currently has massive WP:OVERLAP with the proposed merger. Three out of four sections in the article are exactly the same, making the existence of two separate articles redundant. Glitzae talk talk 05:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kadokawa Key-Process

[edit]


Kadokawa Key-Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Kadokawa Corporation because as of 2019, Kadokawa moved the creative publishing to corporate (the current incarnation) while the company originally handling the publishing division now being a logistics and printing unit and to match Japanese Wikipedia. SBF2004 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Takuya Ohata

[edit]


Takuya Ohata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability from playing two matches in the third league of Japan. Created by globally locked user. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE Publicwalrus (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Cumbria (Locomotive)

[edit]


Cumbria (Locomotive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Article currently depends on one primary, non-independent source, and probably some WP:OR. With a WP:BEFORE search in both English and Japanese, I couldn't find any WP:RS -- I only found a few travel blogs, and that was it. I don't think any SNG applies to this, and it appears to fail WP:GNG. Bungle491 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

List of Japanese princesses

[edit]


List of Japanese princesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please forgive any differences in formatting. I am copying my Talk page message but I am using my laptop.

It's not an issue with notability, content covered, or anything else like that. I absolutely believe that these articles are important, and I also agree with the task of expanding knowledge on Japanese women, especially royal women.


My issue is that it's a poor article. On Japanese wikipedia, there is an article for the title of Imperial Princess (Naishinnō [ja]) and an article for the title of Princess (as it relates to female members of the Imperial family) (Joō [ja]) but not an article for a list, with the list for Imperial Princesses being relegated to a collapsible template. Imperial Princesses is what this article covers. As for Princesses to my knowledge there isn't even a list, merely a category.


When looking at the collapsible template, it is, frankly, more complete and also accurate than this article.


I actually am not opposed to this article existing, but in it's current state I just can't see it being salvaged. It doesn't appear very thought out to me. Oh, also let me quote the article:

Title Usage: Japanese princesses are given the honorific "Naishinnō" (for daughters of the Emperor) or "Shinnō" (for granddaughters of the Emperor).

Wanna know the issue with this? Shinnō is the SONS and grandSONS of an emperor. Naishinnō is the title for the daughters AND granddaughters of an emperor. Other female descendants are Joō (post-Meiji period. Will touch on this soon). This is of course an easy fix that one could just edit, but it's a weird mistake to make that frankly leads me to believe whoever wrote this maybe doesn't have much knowledge on the subject. I'm not entirely sure how this mistake was made as theres good sources in English that even state this. To quote the Imperial Household Agency:

The legitimate children of an Emperor and the legitimate grandchildren of an Emperor in the male line are Shinno (Princes) in the case of males and Naishinno (Princesses) in the case of females.

This information is very easily accessible and it is in English. https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/en/learn/institution/seido/seido02.html I just frankly don't think this article was planned out very well.

There is a lack of understanding of the language or historical context also. Lets assume, for arguments sake, that the creator meant Naishinno. In Japanese this is 内親王. Yet the article lists Joo (女王) Princesses also (I.e. Princess Bunchi (文智女王)) Bunchi was indeed a daughter of an Emperor, but in Pre-Meiji period Japan to become a Naishinno (or Shinno for men) one had to be proclaimed as such. If not you either became a Joo (for women, O for men) or you were given a surname in which case you no longer had an Imperial status.

Thus is this a list of Imperial Princesses or is it a list of daughters of Emperors? Either way it is STILL incomplete.

I just think this article lacks historical or linguistic understanding. If this article is to be remade it should be done from scratch. It needs proper research and sourcing. Camillz (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related AfD discussions. Camillz (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    A) Please make the "easy fix."
    B) It's fine that a list is incomplete.
    C) It's fine that the scope of the list is broad, so long as it is defined. What you've written doesn't seem to say that the article scope is actually inconsistent with the title, rather it seems you would prefer a different scope? Jahaza (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    It is inconsistent. The article "defines" what a Princess is. It defines them as Naishinnō (daughters) and Shinnō (granddaughters). Setting aside the fact that Naishinnō is both daughters and granddaughters, the article doesn't seem to follow a strict rule on Naishinnō. It seems to be daughters of Emperors in general, as opposed to Naishinnō.
    The other issue is sourcing. The article has some sourcing issues listed from last year. Some issues are easily fixed but others aren't. The article would, ideally, he redone, and I would be willing, but I don't understand well enough certain things such as wikitable to effectively carry this out.
    Albeit if it is the consensus that this article be kept, I will look into it.
    Please forgive anything that seems rude. Camillz (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep Identified factual error has been fixed, with source. @Camillz: Please point out any other errors on the talk page if you're not comfortable correcting them yourself. You can also alert editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#Adding missing information/article expansion to get more attention. If you need to update a table with content and are struggling with the syntax, you can use chatgpt to help with the coding (just not with the actual content). TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    My up most apologies if it feels as if I'm wasting anyone's time.
    If the article is to be kept, which I now see it likely will, is there any objections to it being overhauled? If it is, it may take me a few days.Camillz (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment I'm actually inclined to advocate for deletion due to some WP:OR issues. A list of "Japanese princesses" should include all the princesses, past and present. You cannot title the article "List of Japanese princesses" and just include those that bear the title Naishinno. A clueless reader might look at this and wonder why figures like Princess Akiko of Mikasa are not even mentioned by name. The whole criteria section appears to be made up and grossly misleading. Keivan.fTalk 20:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    I'm split two ways and I think I'll stop responding after this and let the discussion play out.
    In the Japanese language this isn't an issue. You see 内親王 and know "oh! That's Naishinnō, which nowadays is the daughters and granddaughters of an emperor." Yet in English 内親王, 女王, 姫, 皇女 are all words translated as Princess. (Number 1: Naishinnō which has been discussed, 2: Joō which are the third generation or later female descents of an emperor. Also the word for queen. Number 3: Hime, the daughters of feudal lords. Also a word for noble and beautiful women among other meaning, and 3: Himemiko, originally used for all the Princesses but eventually came to be used for the daughters of emperors).
    One without linguistic knowledge may be confused. Again I'll sit out the rest of this discussion unless explicitly needed for something. I feel I may not be able to come up with a productive answer. Camillz (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    A list of "Japanese princesses" should include all the princesses, past and present. This is not how lists on Wikipedia generally work, which is why we have Template:Incomplete list and Template:Dynamic list, which are used on tens of thousands of articles. Jahaza (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    If a list cannot include the names of living individuals, then it's not even serving its basic purpose as a list. Why are not Princess Akiko of Mikasa, Princess Yoko of Mikasa, etc. on it? Why does it contain 'made up' criteria on who qualifies as a Japanese princess? It is not just incomplete; it is also fabricated to some extent. I agree with the suggestion that it needs to be draftified until some of these serious concerns are addressed. Keivan.fTalk 22:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Draftify If the information is notable and relevant it doesn't need to be wiped. But taking the nominator and above comments at face value and by digesting it a bit, there does have to be some work on it. AadamentAardvark (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Kurumi Mori

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kurumi Mori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are primary and does not provide significant independent coverage of Mori herself. - The9Man Talk 13:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Arms (company)

[edit]


Arms (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Studio Signpost. Arms was originally founded to manage the "hentai business" sector of Studio Kikan (former name of Studio Signpost), but the two companies lack an independent history and shared the same staff members and the same history. Both companies have historically also been based in the same building. Arms effectively operated as a legally distinct brand label of Kikan/Signpost, and as of 2022, following Arms' bankruptcy in 2020, Signpost continues to use Arms as a label name (Shin Ikki Tousen). In effect, the only distinction between the companies is the legal distinction, otherwise they are seemingly in the same position as Lerche which was merged-into Studio Hibari. Sarca sc (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related AfD discussions. Sarca sc (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep. Even if there is a relationship between Studio Kikan/Signpost and Arms, it is not possible to merge them. Arms existed as an independent yūgen gaisha for 24 years, was renamed to Common Sense in 2017 and was dissolved in 2020 by a shareholders' vote, with a notice received by the Tokyo district court. Arms was a wholly separate entity, not a name only. Anime News Network recognizes Arms as a studio on its own (it provides separate entries for Arms, Dandelion and Triple X) and reported its bankruptcy under the headline "Ikki Tousen, Elfen Lied's Studio Arms Declares Bankruptcy". Merging into Studio Signpost is problematic due to the sheer volume of productions — over 100, as evident from tables listing such works as Elfen Lied, Kite, Ikki Tousen, Queen's Blade and Brynhildr in the Darkness. If everything is transferred from Arms to Signpost, that article will basically become one about Arms. If it is not done, the sourced material will simply be lost. The case of Lerche is different, as it was a division of Hibari and not independent. There are sourcing problems involved as well, given that the production tables have hardly any citations, but this involves clean-up work and does not require deletion. El Banhara (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    @El Banhara: Dandelion and Triple X are all brand names used by both Signpost (pre-1996) and Arms (post-1996), ANNs' separate pages aren't wholly relevant, nor actually relevant to the content of the rationale for why I think they should be merged. The legal distinction is something that I'm arguing should be ignored:
    At current, Arms is credited for R18 works from before 1996, meaning R18 works produced prior to its entity founding and thereby belonging to Studio Kikan (Signpost) by technicality. From 1996 onwards, Arms became the primary production label for the companies' works, thus by Kikan (Signpost) are only credited for a handful of projects up until the company was bought by Pierrot in 2008. Do you credit Signpost for these works instead, even after "Arms" takes over the same projects? There is also Signpost's usage of Arms as a brand name after Arms' legal dissolution, which I mentioned (Shin Ikki Tousen). We can see staff members like Kouji Matsumura credited on both Pierrot Plus (Signpost) and Arms works from 2009-2015, a majority of which are actually Arms projects. Despite this, according to Matsumura's Facebook page, he was employed by Pierrot Plus (Signpost). The animation producer for the Signpost work Shima Shima Tora no Shimajirō, Shintarou Nozaki, was also a producer for Arms projects Mezzo Forte, Nakoruru: Ano Hito kara no Okurimono, Hyakki, and so forth. Others, like production manager Hiroshi Kunosato, worked on Arms projects, episodes of series outsourced to Arms, as well as episodes outsourced to Studio Kikan (Signpost) all the same. Yasuomi Umetsu, in his book Unfinished 梅津泰臣アニメーションワークス, makes no distinction between Pierrot Plus (Signpost) and Arms regarding his employment affiliation into 2018 despite the fact that Arms had, effectively, shut down by then.
    You'll also notice that Arms' address is exactly the same as the current Studio Signpost address (itself the same address used by Pierrot Plus).
    Rather than arguing about their distinction, my primary argument is that the two companies were functionally operating as the same company, and the "sheer volume of works" between them are simply both of their works in practice, just not on paper. Sarca sc (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Actually, to use a better example: ARMS and Studio Signpost are functionally the same as Anima&Co. and NAZ, which are both listed on the same page on both English and JA Wiki. Sarca sc (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Leaning keep. I have no knowledge of these relationships, and frankly no recollection of having started this article 17 years ago (presumably to fill a gap for red links), but I am persuaded by El Banhara's articulation of the need for a separate article on this subject. BD2412 T 15:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Japan Open Tennis Championships – Doubles

[edit]


2026 Japan Open Tennis Championships – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related article:

2026 Japan Open Tennis Championships – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I propose merging to 2026 Japan Open Tennis Championships because the articles are short with minimal coverage and there is no need to divide this into three article. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 07:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Do not merge - If you look at the prevailing practice of tennis tournament pages on Wikipedia, singles and doubles results have always been presented in articles that are separate from the tournament main page. If you merge them here, they will become inconsistent with thousands upon thousands of other pages. I don't see any reason to engage in such massive disruption, and certainly not at the suggestion of an editor who has not been that active in tennis-related pages. Yimingbao (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Do not merge - Yimingbao pretty much said what there is to it: having main/singles/doubles articles is common practice for pages covering decades of tournaments. This level of tournament is an important one as well. Pages like this are good for easy access of results and player info. PatriotasR (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep - there is something to be said for consistency. In many articles we have mens singles, mens doubles, womens singles, womens doubles, mixed and sometimes wheelchair events. They get a separate article because of all the draws and clutter therein. Technically the mens only single & doubles could merge, but that would make it different than all the other thousands of articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Do not merge - One article per draw is already cluttered with information, and it's common practice for all tournaments. • Huferpad talk 23:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep: Results pages for tennis tournaments titled men's and women's singles and doubles have always been their own separate articles from the yearly tennis event parent article for ease of access and to avoid balast on the main page. Per consistency with other tennis-related pages. 8rz (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Shun Nakamura

[edit]


Shun Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of independent sigcov and notability beyond that inherited from his games. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Future GPX Cyber Formula SIN

[edit]


Future GPX Cyber Formula SIN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Future GPX Cyber Formula because the article has ONLY one source (YouTube playlist) and still, we can merge this article together so we can match the show's page on the Japanese Wikipedia when it mentions all the OVA sequels? SBF2004 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Before nominating this I ran source checks to see if this could be improved in some way, but no, not a SINGLE MENTION that I could find on Google. Now some could argue that the fact it charted in Japan helps it lean towards being notable, but it has been discussed before that charting does not instantly establish notability. There is really not that much than can be said about this EP, theres no background, no production, not even a release section. With that being said, this EP does not establish the significant coverage to stand on its own ground. I would vote for redirecting this, but where would it even redirect to? Gavetheman555 (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

SBI Graduate School

[edit]


SBI Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Chainsaw Blood (song)

[edit]


Chainsaw Blood (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NSONG (though it does meet WP:NRECORDING #5) WikipediholicRat (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

WikipediholicRat (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Yes, but I did not write anything about keeping the article, so this does not really appear to be relevant to my comment. If the intent of the rationale was to argue that the song doesn't meet WP:GNG, then it may have been better to say that from the beginning. What I noted was that the description of which criteria the song meets was significantly incomplete, and someone else may take that as a sign that there is value in searching for further coverage. Dekimasuよ! 10:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see. To be clear, I did search for significant coverage before doing this AfD and didn't find anything. Of course, if anyone else does, I would change my mind. However, per WP:PONDURING, the burden of proof is showing that there is significant coverage. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Women's 61 kg

[edit]


Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Women's 61 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Karate at the 2026 Asian Games because the Women's 61 kg division does not appear to be independently notable, and the page only consists of a bracket and an incomplete table. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep: By longstanding custom we have individual pages for these events at major international athletic competitions. (There's also coverage of this individual event here: , in addition to news sources already in the article.) While I believe the sourcing supports a "keep", I'll make something of an WP:IAR argument, which is that when there is a longstanding practice of having standalone pages on individual events, it is best to seek consensus at a centralized discussion point or WikiProject talk page instead of asking the community to address these pages one-by-one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep and oppose merge: The argument for merging seems to rest primarily on that the article is relatively short and consisting largely of results, rather than giving a demonstrated reason why this particular event cannot be covered independently. That really is not, by itself, a strong reason to merge an event article. I should note there's independent coverage specifically concerning this event and is not simply a page that's duplicating a medal table in the main Games article. More importantly, these are individual events at a major international multi-sport competition, and wiki has a longstanding practice of maintaining standalone articles for individual events at the Asian Games and other major championships. If however that practise (affecting many thousands of stable articles) is now considered inappropriate, I agree with above comment that it would be better to establish consensus on the broader question instead of asking the community to address these pages one-by-one.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep and oppose merge: per Dclemens1971, we have over 1000+ of such articles for Asian Games alone (not counting all other multisport events or even single-sport events with various discipines like in athletics, swimming etc). - Squasher (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's 67 kg

[edit]


Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's 67 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Karate at the 2026 Asian Games because the Men's 67 kg division does not appear to meet general notability guidelines independently, and the article in question consists only of a bracket and an incomplete table. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Delete and oppose merge per gukubondinn, and the fact the the article cites no sources means, ipso facto, there is no verifiable material worthy of merging into the main article anyways. Finally, editorially speaking, anything in this article would be overly detailed and WP:UNDUE to be included in the main article.
LkL-70547 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The issue was addressed in the new version, which was completely rewritten based on the corresponding articles from previous Asian Games. I also understand that the page is considered a redirect candidate. However, other pages that follow the established structure of previous editions are also being redirected, which seems inconsistent with how these articles were structured in previous editions. Faruk6468 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment and Questioning - You all realize Karate at Asian Games has 15 medals events? Not 2. If you ONLY specifically delete Men's 67 kg division + Women's 61 kg and leave the other 13 alone - people will ask why we are singling out on deleting only two events. It's not like those two events are worse reported compared to the other 13. There has to be CONSISTENCY. Do we also think the other 13 needs to be deleted too or we have inconsistent standards applied differently to them? Btw, this event compared to other karate events in the games seem to have relative significant national and historical interests. The Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's 67 kg event documents Uzbekistan's first gold medal in the games where Abdul Vakhkhob Rashidov won that event. There are secondary sources covering the winner beyond just raw data from primary sources.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Are the articles for the other events also LLM-generated? Should we be forced to keep LLM-generated articles if someone else has actually written a sister article? What does "fairness" have to do with it? ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    There's barely any words in that article. Just raw facts. So wasn't that hard to verify. Took less than a few minutes. I made the effort here and can confirm content is fully verified in scores and rankings etc.
    So this is a factually accurate article. Per WP:PRESERVE, we shouldn't be deleting articles after it has human oversight verifying all of it. We shouldn't forget the main purpose of Wikipedia is it should be an accurate place of knowledge. We don't delete accurate information once it's validated to not be factually questionable. If there is no human oversight being bothered and you guys have no interest in these topics then go delete. But I verified it and saw no facts were wrong and so cannot agree to delete after verifying - hence my comment below. If it's deleted, it will be rightly challenged and I will recreate this article. Tho I will need LLM to help teach me how to make the table ( hence a learning curve) but eventually I should be able to figure it out and I will definitely ensure all facts are correct afterwards. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep and oppose deletion per WP:PRESERVE - we should not forget the point of Wikipedia. If the facts are factually accurate, the formatting of tables are acceptable - then you are only meant to clean it up or fix minor issues rather than deleting it entirely And I looked at all names, flags, points, final medalists. (I see no issues.) I looked at the overall visual charting and tables - they are acceptable and match the WP:MOS seem in other equivalent articles. I am human oversight and can verify that the article compared to all other karate articles - is consistent in quality and scope. Since the factuality is sound and the visual tables used there aligns with community standards - article should be kept and improved, not deleted on LLM concerns alone. Also we can't be inconsistent. It would look weird as if we only delete articles containing people in that weight class. But leave the other weight class events alone despite they are no different in factual quality. We shouldn't create an arbitrary gap in coverage which makes others needing to fill it.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Keep and oppose deletion fully agreed Yikesaiting (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep and oppose deletion. I've come to this article slightly randomly as I've read that Dayanch Keletliyev (Daýanç Keletliýew -TKM) has been provisionally suspended due to a failed doping test. I've just looked at the official results for this event. At first glance, all the results on this article appear to tie up to the official results. Although the original of this article's creation was/may have been an LLM, it looks all OK now. After all, there is the Karate at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's kumite 67 kg which is setup in the same way and only has original sources. So this page looks fine to me and consistent with multi-sports events like this. By the way, isn't this article missing "kumite" in its name? Seaweed (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete and for other subpages mass delete; Redirect to Karate at the 2026 Asian Games. Clearly fails WP:GNG as no sources exist to critically cover and analyse this one particular event, and GNG is a Wikipedia guideline, "factual", "accurate", and "consistent" are not; in fact all are highlighted in WP:ATA.
LkL-70547 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG doesn't require an article to be long or have "critical coverage". It requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is now substantial independent international coverage of this event including and not limited to; Also as another pointed out, there is also additional reporting on a doping case in that event, which has now been added to notes.
You previously voted above for Delete on the basis the article has no sources. However, that is no longer true. And "Clearly fails WP:GNG" isn't supported by available sourcing. Even if did fail (arguable), WP:GNG is a notability guideline, not an automatic instruction to delete whenever and other factors should be considered like that standalone articles have reader value as they provide a focused and easier-to-read account of the event. I do agree with below that whether we continue the long standing practise of standalone articles for events - requires broad discussion and proper final consensus, rather than potentially deleting 1000+ of equivalent articles based on the consensus of a few. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
OK, given this is clearly WP:1AM, I'll WP:DROPTHESTICK for now. It's surprising that the WP:COVERAGE requirement at WP:NEVENT is stricter than WP:GNG - but I am aware that it does not override GNG. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep: By longstanding custom we have individual pages for these events at major international athletic competitions. (There's also coverage of this individual event here: , , in addition to news sources already in the article.) I sincerely hope the nominator has done an adequate WP:BEFORE for the other pages nominated. While I believe the sourcing supports a "keep", I'll make something of an WP:IAR argument, which is that when there is a longstanding practice of having standalone pages on individual events, it is best to seek consensus at a centralized discussion point or WikiProject talk page instead of asking the community to address these pages one-by-one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Support having a centralised discussion somewhere, this is probably even beyond WP:BUNDLE as these articles are all over the place. As for the sources in this case in particular, I don't see them passing WP:COVERAGE: they are not WP:INDEPTH (routine short articles), very unlikely to have WP:PERSISTENCE, and arguably not WP:DIVERSE as none of them have a unique angle on the story. LkL-70547 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep You all realise for Karate alone there are, as of now, 88 similar articles in Category:Karate at the Asian Games? Same for all other sports represented in the Asian Games, with different amounts of articles (just take a look at Category:Shooting at the 2006 Asian Games). This PetScan would need more fine tuning, but the numbers are easily 1000+ for this kind of results page. It seems to be consensus to accept them, so why discuss the deletion of one such article with an argument that either fits for (nearly) all articles or none? I don't think this is the way. - Squasher (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Dororonpa!

[edit]


Dororonpa! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think this series is notable. I attempted to look for sources that were independent, reliable, secondary, and significant in Japanese and English, and I found one source on Natalie that discussed it in detail. Everything else I find on the subject is primary, unreliable, or lacks significant coverage; therefore, I believe the subject fails WP:GNG. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: I updated the article with more sources, and added sections. The series is a well-known nostalgia show in Japan. It was broadcast on national television in the 90s and it is still available on streaming platforms like Amazon, Apple TV, and U-NEXT. I think it is less known in other countries because it was never translated or dubbed into English.
Apart from the Comic Natalie article that you mention, I added another piece from them covering the manga, and more references from secondary sources about the manga and the anime series.
The page is also linked across Wikipedia from related articles, like the author and voice actors.
Since the article has been rewritten and expanded with proper references, I propose improving and maintaining the article per WP:PRESERVE. this user (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 02:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Sleepy Sea

[edit]


Sleepy Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of a number of very lengthy, possibly AI generated, articles about the work of photographer Kansuke Yamamoto . This article is about a single photograph, and basically a description of what a single author says in her book Japan's Modern Divide: The Photographs of Hiroshi Hamaya and Kansuke Yamamoto. As such, Sleepy Sea shows little sign at all of meeting WP:GNG. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep – The 2013 J. Paul Getty Museum catalogue discusses Sleepy Sea in detail. Amanda Maddox compares it with Magritte's The Reckless Sleeper and discusses the compass, pocket watch and toy gun marked "Japan". She relates the photograph to Breton, its title and postwar Japan. I think that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. WP:GNG does not set a fixed number of sources; its note on sources allows for cases where one source is credible, neutral and detailed enough for a comprehensive article. Maddox's essay appeared in an edited Getty Museum catalogue. The work is also documented in the 2001 Tokyo Station Gallery catalogue and in the 2017 Japanese Surrealist Photography materials. I don't think the nomination's reference to a single author, by itself, shows that Sleepy Sea fails WP:GNG when Maddox discusses the photograph in this much detail. Fontana2026 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Update: Since my comment above, I have added a 2013 CNN feature by Lauren Russell to the article. It discusses Yamamoto's political photocompositions and the 1951 security treaty, then describes Sleepy Sea as a 1953 work with a toy gun marked "Japan". It also says that the title does not say what it refers to. This is secondary coverage by a different author and publication. The nomination's point that the article essentially relies on a single author therefore no longer holds. Fontana2026 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Considering the Maddox essay is in an exhibition catalogue (with a vested interest in promoting the work) and the CNN source is a photo blog, with one small paragraph describing the photo, I stand by my nomination. A bloated article of repeated descriptions and context can be simply summed up by the three lines already in the Kansuke Yamamoto article. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply. For WP:GNG, I don't think the fact that Maddox's essay is in a Getty Museum exhibition catalogue, by itself, establishes a specific vested interest in Sleepy Sea or makes the essay non-independent. Getty does not own Sleepy Sea. Maddox provides scholarly analysis of the photograph and its context. It is not promotional copy. Separately, on CNN, WP:NEWSORG notes that material from an otherwise reliable news organization can remain reliable in blog format. The CNN piece describes Sleepy Sea in a discussion of Yamamoto's political photocompositions and postwar politics. Fontana2026 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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 no consensus. Owen× ☎ 15:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Alph Lyla

[edit]
Alph Lyla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Capcom because its notability is not asserted. Only available sources are forums. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge. It can be argued Fujita actually does not pass notability for the purposes of this article on the same caution criterion 6 mentions; recursive and circular notability. Fujita’s primary fame is working within Capcom themselves, of which Alph Lyla is accredited to. EarthToAccess (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Fujita's fame is not "from working within Capcom" but from working on multiple definitely notable games in a composer capacity, many as sole composer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:22, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 12:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep If you actually check the Japanese wiki (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALPH_LYLA), it has a lot of things to expand, while the source can be research from various Japanese media and publication. Christian Elbrianno (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This amounts to WP:SOURCESEXIST so it would be helpful to say if any actual sources were there that could count towards it being notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:26, 25 September 2026 (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.

Yuzuki Miura

[edit]


Yuzuki Miura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article as of nomination has two primary sources and one independent source. Doing a search on all names returned no independent sources, however a deeper search is needed for Japanese articles. More independent reliable sources with significant coverage on the driver is needed. Fails WP:GNG. Ecourter (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment @BuffaloTaro I have to ask, what tier does a driver become notable? I can definitely see being a Formula 3 driver as notable but how far down does it go? Most drivers in the Formula Regional European Championship are notable. ~2026-50236-34 (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I am 50-50 with F3, depending on how much WP:SIGCOV these drivers get themselves, not just coverages in motorsport news that they won races. These FREC drivers maybe notable to die hard fans but the quality of those articles proves my point otherwise - a season by season outline of what they have been doing, barely anything else - its like we hand them notability like candy and 5 years later, 80% of them will be forgotten. Look at the first season of FREC - how many of these are championship contenders in F1? BuffaloTaro (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep according to the instant results that come out after I Google up his name. Turns out it narrowly scrapes past WP:N. He's renowned by others, so I see no other reason to delete this article. We only need to add a few more contents to the article. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 14:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No policy based arguments except for BuffaloTaro's. Please use links to sources as we cannot see what Google showed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete: I'm not finding the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG here, either in the article or elsewhere. Of the current sources in the article, #1 and #3 are from his team and are not independent, while #2 has only a quick mention of the subject and as such is not significant. Looking through the google results doesn't reveal much better. It may simply be WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply


Categories

[edit]
  • Add categories here using the {{cl|CATEGORY}} template

Images

[edit]
  • Add images here using the [[:File:FILENAME]] semicolon to start the link

Templates

[edit]
  • Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template

Redirects

[edit]
  • Add redirects here using the {{no redirect|REDIRECT}} template

Proposed deletions

[edit]

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.

This project article is part of WikiProject Japan. Click here for more information.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Japan&oldid=1378128220"