Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illustrations of 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations of Japan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability asserted in the article. Entirely self-referenced. For me, the original title "Bijzonderheden over Japan" gets 89 Google hits. Should be mentioned on the article for the author Isaac Titsingh (as it is already) and nothing more. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    09:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    09:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    09:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: From what I can see on the publisher's page, Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns looks an annotated version of the same book. However because it is annotated and published through a reputable publisher, I'd say that the annotations could be used as a sign of notability in this situation. We'd need other sources to show notability, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: If someone were to edit the material carefully into the article on Titsingh, this might be fine, but simply deleting it smacks of vandalism. It seems to me that arguing about "notability" for current events or material is sorting wheat from chaff, but historical surviving material is by definition stuff that has been found notable enough to survive. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notability is not in doubt. Among contemporary reviews, all of them substantial:
 * It was reviewed in 1822 by The Gentleman's Magazine (pp. 430-432).
 * It was discussed at length in The Eclectic Review of 1822 (pp. 324-332).
 * It was reviewed by The Monthly Review in 1822 (pp 337-350).
 * More recently, it was reviewed by Sir Hugh Cortazzi for The Japan Society, again in substantial detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is significant as an early Western look at Japan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK which is shown by citations above, thanks to Chiswick Chap, also covered by WP:OLDBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep' and I would've also closed as such as this seems currently convincingly notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 19 January 2016 (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.