Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australians in Japan


 * 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   redirect to Australia–Japan relations.  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Australians in Japan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Simple recitation of statistics without discussion of why this is notable. Jhortman (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. As noted, fails WP:GNG Richigi (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not delete. I don't believe that it should be deleted. While it did just have some basic numbers, I have added some historical information regarding Australians in Japan during the occupation of Japan, plus links to notable individuals to add to the previous information, and plan to add more in the future. Also, a brief perusal of the other nationalities in Japan shows that there are 361 Jamaicans in Japan and this article is not under review. In terms of pure numbers, there are a similar amount of Georgians in Japan, and that article is not slated for deletion either. --Josephus37 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the other stuff exists argument is not sufficient to prove notability. Expanding the article to provide proof of notability is a great idea, if possible.  You have a good point about Georgians in Japan and Jamaicans in Japan, which I have also listed for AfD.  (I'm not deletionist on a mission here, btw.  I simply came across this article while patrolling new pages and don't think that it meets the GNG criteria. In fact, I'm generally an inclusionist.) -Jhortman (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Fails WP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Several books have been written about the Australian occupation forces in Japan, and there are a number of histories of Australian-Japan relations which cover this topic. As such, this is a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * please list these sources. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Article is pointless. Census information is presented without encyclopedic context. Information about postwar occupation role of Australian and other Commonwealth forces should be rolled into relevant military history articles, not into a general interest stub article which lists footballers and would-be geisha. Jun Kayama 03:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Australians in Japan during the Occupation is adequately covered in British_Commonwealth_Occupation_Force. otherwise this is a list of Australians who are temporarily based in Japan. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Australia–Japan relations. I was going to say "keep", because census information is helpful and military involvement has obviously gotten coverage and should appear in Wikipedia, but Jun's comments swung me around to realise that this is an amalgamation that really isn't helpful.  However, there's nothing wrong with the title, and someone might be able to come up with better content on this subject, so let's redirect it to an article that is related to it.  Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is covered sufficiently in Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, Australia–Japan relations and Category:Australian expatriates in Japan none of which are overly long. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.