Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanophile (2)


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn -- JForget 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanophile
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT, I don't see any evidence this is actually a real word. There is a subscription citation provided in the last AfD, but it doesn't speak about the origin of this word at all. As far as I can tell from a cursory google search 10 pages in, this is a case of something made up at school one day. I haven't seen a single result yet which could be used as a reliable source. There is a claim its in several dictionaries, but I certainly don't see it at dictionary.com. The only other argument I really see on the previous afd is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which isn't really a valid reason for keeping an article.Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAW->I'll withdraw the nomination but with the understanding that its in desperate need of citation. The only current provided citation doesn't elevate it beyond being a dictionary definition.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This clearly is an actual term; just try a Google Books search or a Google News search. Zagalejo^^^ 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of those summaries seem to have the author throwing the word in to quotes which makes me believe there is some doubt as to its wide acceptance, though there are some references going back before 1900. As long as legitimacy and proper sourcing for the text of this article can be provided I have no problem with it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although the term does (or did) exist, it still need references. Just like how we can find articles from respectable sources on Hippies and Bohemians, I think there are references out there. Until references are found, this article is too "iffy" to be on WP. Maybe WP:Userfy? -- Emana (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If it was made up in school one day, it was a day a long time ago. In addition to the citation in the Webster's Unabridged from the previous AfD, it's in my copy of the OED cited as dating from the early 20th century. Needs cleanup and sources, but it a real and notable term. The perjorative claim looks especially dubious to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The word is on Webster's Dictionary. --Saintjust (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Quasirandom, who beat me to it. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep See the Britannica entry for Kumamoto, and the OED entry for Japano-, for examples of use. The Wikipedia article goes well beyond a dictionary definition. Fg2 (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does, but its completely unsourced. At least now with a citation showing it exists in a dictionary, that demonstrates its a real word, but without any other citations it would have to be reduced to only a dictionary definition.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Common word in common usage, not just in niche circles. Used by media, news and many other sources. Listed in mainstream dictionaries, encyclopaedias and other sources. Source the article a bit better, but obviously a real used word. Ben W Bell   talk  04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only found in dictionaries, either; used by the BBC, The New York Times, The Daily Yomiuri, et cetera, as shown by Google News searches. Dekimasu よ! 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. This looks somewhat promising. The term itself is discussed, not just mentioned in passing, and someone could also find the original being referred to in the text. Dekimasu よ! 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — I just readded a citation from the online version of "Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (2002)", for "Japanophile," since had inadvertently deleted it.--Endroit (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also reverted an undiscussed unilateral move by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard from Japanophile → Japanophilia.--Endroit (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The other changes by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard appears to be good work, especially since he cited multiple sources.--Endroit (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — This edit by an anonymous person had removed all sources back in November.--Endroit (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, not a neologism. --Lukobe (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: multiply strange. Japanophile (a common word) is actually a redirect to Japanophilia (a much less common one). The article seems to think that the phenomena started at about the time when western Japanophilia was, I believe, in sharp decline (prompted by Japanese militarism). It's illustrated with the photo of a sole putative Japanophile: Hearn, who so loved Japan that he (i) never bothered to learn the language and (ii) kept complaining about the indignities of his life down in Kumamoto. His own article ignores this and instead describes him as the man who offered the West some of its first glimpses into pre-industrial and Meiji Era Japan -- so much for the thirty or more intercoursing years of informative and admiring comment that preceded him. (Just as one example, how about Griffis's The Mikado's Empire?) Grrr! (Yeah yeah, I should rewrite it all. But sorry, I've got my hands full with other articles, not to mention "real life".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 9 January 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.