Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitotsubashi Group


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. I added references to the page, so there is no longer grounds for deletion. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  12:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitotsubashi Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources I found, such as this one seem to suggest that the entity known as Hitotsubashi Group is something else. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  10:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is this an AfD that is based on the assertion that the article is incorrect? I don't believe that falls under WP:DEL-REASON. Shouldn't that be settled through a discussion on the article talk page? I should note that the link you gave did not work. I also have found other sources that confirm that the article is about the right group:, , , etc. Unless there is an argument about notability, perhaps this AfD should be withdrawn. Michitaro (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did some more searching and was able to find out what you were talking about. There are articles such as this that say a group of economists at Hitotsubashi University between the fifties and the seventies was informally called the "Hitotsubashi Group." While clearly the publishing group is the main referent for the term (and thus the article is correct as is)--even in Japanese--there do seem to be other, minor uses. There might be a need at some time to disambiguate, but that is not reason to delete a perfectly correct article. Michitaro (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I edited the article and added three references for now. I admit this was a poor nomination on my part. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  09:43, 20 January 2013 (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.