Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Guyanese


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Guyanese

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A population of two individuals is not likely to be notable. (I also note with amusement that the article claims these two individuals follow three different religions.) Title is a neologism. I can google up no evidence that any scholars or journalists have written about this "group" of people, or for that matter either one of them individually, in a non-trivial fashion. Deprodded by creator without any attempt at improvement. cab (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: article was missing AfD tag for roughly 40 hours due to vandalism by the creator. I have restored the tags. cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't call it "vandalism" when people remove AfD tags from articles :( You should do that only when you are totally sure that they are doing it on bad faith. Many unexperienced editors don't know that they can't remove the tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am no longer assuming good faith for this user, whose edits have repeatedly shown no respect for the basic, universal principle of an encyclopedia: that it should contain facts (not known falsehoods, inventions out of thin air, or other statements you can't possible know are true or not). Deliberate obstruction of efforts by legitimate editors to apply this principle is the precise definition of vandalism. cab (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * delete and I bet you several others are space-filler cruft too. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, two persons is not a community. Note that the number two refers to Japanese citizens in Guyana, not necessarily permanent residents. Interestingly the creator of the article has listed three separate religions for these two individuals. --Soman (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Buddhism and Shintoism are not mutually exclusive to the Japanese, and one can be a practitioner of both at the same time, which would make one of the two individuals from the article a Roman Catholic, and the other a Buddhist/Shintoist. That aside, this article truly isn't very needed, and two people are hardly a diaspora.Delete. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Or more likely, the creator of this article just made this up in order to have something to fill into the infobox, which breaks if you don't give it the "religions" parameter. For all we know, those two might actually be Mormons on their overseas mission trip, or married Guyanese Muslims and converted to Islam, or whatever. The source certainly doesn't mention any information about their religion, or where they live, or what languages they speak. cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how the source says nothing of the two people's religion, any of the above could be the case, yes. I was just trying to show how you could fit the three religions onto two persons.TomorrowTime (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Fg2 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The following thread segment has been copied to Talk:Japanese diaspora and Template talk:Japanese diaspora -- consensus clarification needed? --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Unlike this article, the corollary articles focus on Issei, Nisei and Sansei whose citizenship has changed, e.g., Japanese Brazilians, Japanese Americans, Japanese Canadians, etc. Even if the number of Japanese expatriates in Guyana were larger, I'd guess that the rationale for for deleting this article and deleting it from Template:Japanese diaspora would seem credible and persuasive? --Tenmei (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not credible to me. Expatriates like Japanese people in Hong Kong or de:Japaner in Düsseldorf are notable article topics, regardless if they don't fit Japanese American/Japanese Brazilian-centric conceptions of what defines "Japanese diaspora". (And of course, no one calls them by ridiculous names like "Japanese Chinese" or "Japanese Germans" even if they take up local citizenship --- except Wikipedia users going around inventing titles to fill up templates, without bothering to do any actual reading or research on them.) cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had understood Nikkei as a congnate for Japanese diaspora; and I construed the differences found in Template:Japanese diaspora as mere anomalies. CaliforniaAliBaba's comment causes me to think that this minor issue may need consensus clarification?  In WP:V terms, I note that this article' sole reference citation is a MOFA web page; and in that context, it becomes relevant that in the case of other countries, Nikkei are statistically described separately from Japanese citizens living and working abroad, e.g., Japanese and ethnic Japanese in Mexico.  My view is partly informed by the approach MOFA adopted in parsing the data; but, of course, I recognize this may be disregarded in our context.  The narrow issue at hand is Japanese Guyanese which may be re-introduced in future; but even in the fuzzy logic terms in which Japanese people in Hong Kong might be stretched to imply a future Japanese people in Guyana, the AfD consensus for today seems best. --Tenmei (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (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.