Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Japan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Japan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Japan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Japan-related AfDs

Scan for Japan-related Prods
Scan for Japan-related template TfDs

See also:

Japan

DJ HI-C

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't believe this meets WP:NARTIST or WP:NBIO. Most sources appear to be passing mentions and/or non-independent from the subject. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 12:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Arts. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 12:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - While the DMC might qualify it per WP:NBAND, I don't believe it establishes notability in this case. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 12:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is a member of turntable duo Kireek, which this reliable source confirms has won the team DMC world championship five times. Kireek, which evidently does not have a page, are the "most decorated Team Champions in DMC history" and have been the subject of scholarly coverage per [1] and [2]. As such I believe Kireek itself is notable and I would support a merge/redirect of this article, assuming the target article is created (which I may do myself when I have time). ResonantDis_tortion 15:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kireek per WP:BANDMEMBER. I created the page for the target. ResonantDis_tortion 16:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice no Paint Adventure

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Retro Gamer piece is not in-depth enough to count as significant coverage. I can't read the Google Books reference but even if it were SIGCOV, it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggested WP:ATD targets: Epoch Co.#Licensed games or List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games. Mika1h (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Mika1h (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the above: I could not find any more significant reference through a WP:BEFORE check, so it appears to fail GNG. Somepinkdude (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- agree with the nom s suggest for redirects based on its context, the former would be the better option as its closer in relevance to the game's developer.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God! (video game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only piece of significant coverage I found is this Hardcore Gaming 101 article: [3]. It alone is not enough for notability. Redirection to List of Atlus games? Mika1h (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Mika1h (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Japanese wiki article, so that doesn't help... I found this [4], it self-styles as the Museum of Video Games, but I suspect it's not a RS. I don't see much of anything that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Atlus games - I was unable to find any coverage of this game on Archive.org, searching both by the English and the Japanese titles. Doesn't appear independently notable, but apt to have on a list of games by the company with the Hardcore Gaming 101 ref the entry is sourced to. Waxworker (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Atlus games per above. Found an All Game Guide entry [5], but that's it. Timur9008 (talk) 11:02, October 31, 2025 (UTC)

Vampiyan Kids

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per WP:GNG. Redirect to Production I.G#Television series? Mika1h (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Anime and manga, and Japan. Mika1h (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Production_I.G#Television series: listed there (some of the added sources can be merged); per WP:ATD-R, section in the page explaining Wikipedia's deletion policy that states: "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate" e.ux 11:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's! TV Play Classic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, lack of significant coverage in general and article does not have any footnotes. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:VGSCOPE, consists mainly of unsourced game detail and reads like a game guide. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 13:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuo Asami

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur astronomer, sourced only to a database. Tagged for expansion from French but the French article is sourced only from a line in a local meeting announcement and a line in a table. Being a minor planet discoverer is not itself a criterion for notability; we need depth of sourcing or significant scholarly impact. Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Renerpho (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC) EDIT: I'd also be fine with the merge to Japan Spaceguard Association that was suggested below, if that page mentioned him (which it currently doesn't, so my vote remains to delete). Renerpho (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Change to merge to Japan Spaceguard Association#Members, where he is now mentioned (per discussion below). Renerpho (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom CabinetCavers (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RenerphoNow mentioned on the page; see Japan Spaceguard Association#Members. e.ux 14:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; technically the merge is more or less done- and a simple redirect should suffice.@Renerpho e.ux 14:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. Renerpho (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Japan. e.ux 00:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7 listed discoveries of minor planets- his work seems to have had an impact on the discipline and beyond according to existing coverage: https://www.astroarts.co.jp/article/hl/a/3323 https://dot.asahi.com/articles/-/245291?page=3 so if not keep, [merge]redirect into Japan Spaceguard Association#Members of which Asami is one of the members [-none mentioned on the page yet-]; https://www.spaceguard.or.jp/ASUTE/a30/bisei/bisei30_02.html --e.ux 00:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Asahi dot article *literally* just credits Asami Atsuo in two photo captions; the first source is a passing mention that provides next to nothing to expand the article with. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 02:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I am suggesting a merge [redirect] if the page is not kept. e.ux 02:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [What you call "*literally* just credit[ing] Asami Atsuo in two photo captions" refers to images of the estimated damage of a 100-meter-diameter asteroid fall on Nagoya (not a snapshot of his dog or his family, but the result of research, showing he has some kind of authority in the domain..)[reply]
@Eva UX: Neither the discovery of minor planets nor the mere fact that he is conducting research into asteroids (and their possible impacts) establish that the subject is notable. The ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planet discoverers may be relevant to your argument. A lot of the people currently listed in List of minor planet discoverers are not notable, and a trimmed down version is in preparation at User:Renerpho/List of minor planet discoverers. Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, if discovering 7 minor planets, which is 7 more than the usual person, and having their research used in mainstream media is not enough for a standalone article, it does make him, imv, notable enough for a minimal [merge in] redirect to Japan Spaceguard Association#Members -, as an Wikipedia:ATD that would help expand and source the target page. e.ux 13:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)- per WP:ATD-R: that section in a page presenting Wikipedia's deletion policy, that states: "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate". --e.ux 14:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the merge. Renerpho (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've copied the content to User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers so that it's not lost. Urhixidur (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: What's your argument for keeping, other than maybe an indication that you want it to be userfied? Renerpho (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sota Aoyama

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't seen anything here making this person notable. A huge list of credits in non-notable films and a youtube channel with a few thousand followers... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the main cast of Death Note, Death Note: The Last Name and Death Note: Light Up the New World. Lead role in Ultraman Max. Keep. Per Wikipedia:NACTOR- as he had significant roles in notable productions; and expand by translating the corresponding article in ja., for example. e.ux 09:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. e.ux 09:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR. Has significant (in fact, lead) roles in multiple notable films. BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

08:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misato Katsuragi's Reporting Plan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage for this "game". There's a Famitsu release announcement of the game: [6], Inside news story announcing the shutdown of the service: [7]. Short list entries by Keen Gamer and CBR: [8], [9]. Suggesting redirect to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games per WP:ATD. Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no indication of a foreign language-competent WP:BEFORE. From a quick search, there is a cnet announcement when it launched, this piece in Markezine (published by Shōeisha), and this in Gigazine describing it as groundbreaking. No reason to believe there isn't more (in addition to the coverage already in the article), but combined, this is enough for GNG. DCsansei (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit rich calling me incompetent and then posting a bunch of sources that are basically glorified press releases. --Mika1h (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there's enough for this game to meet GNG. In addition to the mentioned sources, there is coverage from 4Gamer and Inside which are reliable per WP:VG/RS. MidnightMayhem (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom. None of the sources shown have given me the impression they are any more than WP:MILL release announcements when run through a translation tool. They aren't WP:SIGCOV and there is no indication that there are more detailed reviews out there. If anything, bringing up these sources as the "best" made me far more confident in its non-notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games – Per above. Svartner (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - whilst there are some alright sources, we could characterise most of these as WP:ROUTINE pre-release coverage as is normal for games media when commenting on press releases or announcements of a game or service. That alone tends not to be enough to get over the line. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage and passes GNG. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Misato Katsuragi has a page, so perhaps another merge target to consider? IgelRM (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Misato Katsuragi Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games-is a better option I see, as went through the suggested additions of citations and they do seem to suggest a more press release like tone, than actual reviews or in depth coverage. Not opposed to the suggested Merge target as suggested above either as the Misato Katsuragi article does have a section for other media in which this would fit as well.Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, redirect looks likely, but more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Board game record

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that does absolutely nothing to establish that it's subject matter - 'board game records' as a class - has any independent notability. The lede would be a dictionary definition if it actually defined anything at all, rather than repeating itself pointlessly. The second paragraph is likewise dicdef, but for some Asian languages. The third belongs in the article on go, while the fourth is a banal platitude followed by a vague statement about something or other. Not only is this entirely unsourced bar a 'citation', just added which in no way actually supports anything of consequence, but it offers no clue as to why 'board game records' have been singled out as subject matter. No sourced discussion of the topic as a whole, which would be required to demonstrate notability. Nothing. And the suggestion, also just added, that content from the Japanese-language article on the same subject be included is singularly unhelpful, in that that article suffers from exactly the same issue of not demonstrating why 'board game records' specifically merit an article, in a context where such records are routinely kept on everything from field sports to poker. And nor would it be remotely appropriate to copy the reams of guides to games record notations that the Japanese article has. If they belong anywhere (which as guides, might be questioned) it is in the article of the parent game, or if the coverage in secondary sources justifies it, in articles of their own. Lumping a slew of different guides together doesn't make a topic and it can only either result in hiding content away in an obscure location, or duplicating it. Neither of which would be remotely useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Sports. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Japan, and Korea. e.ux 18:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX; there are sources in Japanese about the subject. e.ux 18:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. What name, for what items? There is nothing whatsoever in the article that remotely resembles a set index. As for sources in Japanese, you need to cite them, not just claim they exist, if you wish to use them to demonstrate notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kifu or game record/notation is the name, and items include the 3 pages in the see also sections -and possibly other games -see below. But regardless of the possible or not -since record-notation is not the same word- SIA-status of the page, you must have seen the source added to the page- didn't check Korean sources but plenty of books and articles in ja and zh deal with the concept -you need to type the original word in your search. The main idea behind my !vote is that the article can exist based on the fact that there is a common concept -and word- behind notation of moves and record of results in various board games; with the development of IA, the transcribed ja term is becoming frequent. -the page could be renamed but is it necessary, not sure. Non-ja/zh sources include https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10032377/ ; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-66715-7_30 ; https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/600640 -please ck transcription of the Japanese title ; https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1501750.1501817 https://www.cvl.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mva/proceedings/CommemorativeDVD/2002/papers/2002052.pdf ; those are only examples showing the word is used for various games and has been the object of significant attention. e.ux 20:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for names - the existence of a word doesn't make the subject of the word notable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not of English. Not of Japanese. And not of any other language. And I'm not asking for your opinion on 'common concepts'. I'm asking for sources which establish that Board game records as a class have been the subject of in-depth discussion. Not notation for specific games (which can, if the notation itself is notable have their own articles, and if not, be discussed in the relevant game article, where a reader would expect to find them) but sources directly discussing the subject of this article as a whole, in depth. These are required to meet notability criteria. Links to articles that merely illustrate that a word (in any language) has been applied to notations for a board game (or for board games in general) do absolutely nothing to establish that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not asking for names? Ah well, silly me, I thought that What name? was exactly that, but never mind. And what I am saying is precisely that the notion of kifu or "board game record" has been the subject of in-depth discussion; you have some sources; read them; more exist in other languages- feel free to check. e.ux 22:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked. None of the sources you link are discussing board game records as a class in significant depth. This [10] is a paper on "analyzing and modeling player behavior" in Reversi. This [11] is 'A Method for Illustrating Shogi Postmortems Using Results of Statistical Analysis of Kifu Data'. again a discussion of analysis of a specific game, not '"board game records' in general. This [12] is 'a system for recording Japanese-Chess using image recognition technology'. This [13] concerns 'A remote Chinese chess game using mobile phone augmented reality'. And this [14] is 'An Automatic Recording System of the Plays and Moves of SHOGI Games'. None are discussing board game records, as a class, in depth or otherwise, and accordingly none of them have the slightest relevance to a discussion as to whether the subject of board game records, as a class, meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Please stop wasting my time with links to usage of the word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, per policy. Notability is shown through in depth discussion of the article subject itself, per policy. None of this is negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please stop wasting my time...ahahah, you are so friendly that I'll leave it at that. e.ux 23:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: another solution would be to merge into Glossary_of_board_games (and with/or into Go game record)), but the word kifu is now a pretty common concept in various board games and game theory (and beyond) and is used in French, German, (and as links above show, in English) etc. (see the latter article's interlanguagelinks). e.ux 22:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add 'kifu' to a glossary, and can justify it with sources (something almost entirely lacking from the glossary, I note), then do so. Just don't fill it with the random blather the subject of this AfD concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Eva. I agree that there are sources in Japanese and I would suggest AndyTheGrump be more civil. DCsansei (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest that you read what WP:N actually requires of sources used to establish notability - which is more than mere usage of a word. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Andy's reasoning is sound. --Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary_of_board_games. Right now this fails to show GNG. It may or may not be notable (I've written entries on some aspects of board games, like game board or meeple...). For now the basic concept can be preserved in the glossary per WP:ATD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this isn't a convincing set-index article (no text discussing the situation as a set, just a dictionary definition) and we don't need it as a navigational list (anyone who wants to know about chess notation is going to search for that directly). The existence of this article actually discourages the growth of a better article that might have been written: one on generalised approaches to recording the structure and playing of multiple games, such developments as Ludii ([15],[16]), an article perhaps analogous to Dance notation, which discusses generally the recording of how something happens in time. Elemimele (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of All Nippon Airways destinations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:LISTN, and WP:NOT.

Of the 122 destinations listed in this article, fewer than half (55 by my count) are supported by any source at all. The other ~67 are instant WP:V fails.

Of the 55 company services for which any source at all is cited, 50 are cited to the company website or copies of the ANA's timetable. This leaves only the remaining 5 or so additional destinations which are cited to:

A Perth Now article about a single route, sourced only to company statements and the statements of officials. Fails WP:ORGIND and anyway doesn't discuss the destinations of ANA as a group as required by WP:LISTN.
A 404 article on Executive Traveller, which is industry press.
An article on aviacion online, which is industry press, based entirely on statements from ANA
A 404 article on Japan Times.
A brief, routine story about the opening of a single ANA route on Japan Times, sourced entirely to ANA statements. Routine, run-of-the-mill coverage, that is not independent of the subject.
Aeroroutes, which is Jim Liu's personal blog per RSN.
Routesonline, which is also a corporate blog and not sufficiently independent per RSN.
An article on Chron.com about the opening of a single route, sourced entirely to ANA statements.

More over this is a WP:NOT failure as it is a complete listing of all the services of a company, particularly WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Japan. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Nippon Airways#Destinations or delete outright: these airline destination lists are a prime example of what Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE). No reliable independent sources discuss the destinations as a whole, and it thus fails WP:NLIST. Better sources can probably be found for a few destinations, but overall this is largely unverifiable as a supposed snapshot of where the airline flew at some date (two conflicting possible dates are specified in this case, and there's also a claim of potential future destinations although none seem to be actually listed). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the claim that "no reliable independent sources discuss the destinations as a whole" is absolutely false. Overall network changes at ANA have been extensively covered by major news organizations. For example: coverage when 60% of international flights were cut, cutting 12 domestic routes, addition of three international routes with commentary on overall European and international network, return of pre-Covid domestic network, struggles on domestic routes, international route resumptions, network shifts between Haneda and Narita, etc. Avgeekamfot (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These either aren’t coverage of routes per se, aren’t coverage of the routes in this article, or are the typical WP:SIRS-fails because they are always sourced only to the WP:ROUTINE announcements of the airline.

COVID-era cancellations are really about the impact of COVID on airlines (something we already have an article about), but even if they weren’t, they are outside of the scope of this list, because this is a list of the destinations served at one of two dates in 2025 - long after the pandemic passed. Though the article doesn’t clearly define which: is it February 2025 or July 2025? But then the sourcing - in as much as this article is sourced at all - is from years or even decades before then. FOARP (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andre🚐 08:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the clear consensus from a nearly two-month AfC earlier this year that destination lists do not violate WP:NOT. In terms of sourcing, the way to fix that is to find the sources not delete the article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: please note that there is a clear consensus that these articles do not violate WP:NOT so both the nomination and "per nom" or "per WP:NOT" votes should be ignored unless that consensus is overridden. Avgeekamfot (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that nominator participated in the discussion that resulted in a consensus they disagree with. This is an attempt at forum shopping. Avgeekamfot (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC related to a specific page (British Airways) that is not this one, and the issue here is not only WP:NOT, but WP:V, WP:NCORP, and WP:LISTN which are also failed. It's also not forum-shopping, because I wasn't the one who brought the January 2025 RFC, and because it's not the same page under discussion. Finally, consensus can change and that is hardly the only RFC we've had in this field. We also had a 2018 RFC that was about this article-class as a whole saying we shouldn't have them, we also had a late 2023 article about airport-destination tables saying they had to have independent, reliable secondary sourcing (a standard that this article would fail) we also had somewhere in the region of 50 different AFDs resulting in the deletion of nearly 300 of these articles since the start of 2023, some of which survived DELREV (e.g., the deletion of United Airlines destinations, List of Syrian Air destinations) and the most recent four of which closed only last week. This is very similar to the List of Air Nippon destinations article which was deleted together with 119 other airline-destination articles. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is no indication of a foreign language-competent WP:BEFORE, or any BEFORE at all. In addition to English sources provided above:

積極的な拡大路線、コロナで裏目に　ANA過去最大の赤字 from a national newspaper
全日空と日本航空、国際線を強化　新路線が次々就航、競争激しく from a national wire service
ANA・JALですら「国内線」は大悲鳴！公的支援が来年度で打ち切り、業績絶好調の裏で進む「航空ビジネスモデル崩壊」へのカウントダウン deep dive from a major business magazine (multiple pages)
ANAの新規就航「欧州3路線」、予約率8割で好調な滑り出し。“空白地帯”埋められるか from another business news site

There is also a book published by a longstanding Japanese publisher of which, according to previews, fully 1/4 is dedicated to ANA's network and destination choices. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. DCsansei (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are:

A Mainichi article that nowhere actually gives any coverage to listing ANA's routes. Instead it discusses work-force reduction, changes to the fleet, and Japanese government plans to expand flights from Haneda (i.e., for all airlines, not just ANA).
A wire-service report based on WP:ROUTINE ANA company announcements. Exactly the kind of sourcing WP:NCORP tells us not to use. It gives only one brief sentence to the topic of ANA's routes ("All Nippon Airways will launch scheduled flights between Haneda and Milan, Italy in December 2024, Stockholm, Sweden in January 2025, and Istanbul, Turkey in February, with three round-trip flights per week.". Not SIGCOV.
Diamondonline.jp, industry press, based entirely on an interview with Tomoki Watanabe, a director at ANA, which gives exactly one sentence to the subject of ANA's routes (in machine translation: "starting from the winter 2025 schedule, the airline is aiming to restore profitability by reducing supply, such as by reducing the number of flights on the Haneda-Komatsu route, which competes with the Shinkansen, by two, and the Itami-Fukuoka route by one."). Not independent, not SIGCOV.
BusinessInsider.jp (yes, the same Business Insider that publishes in English, i.e., industry press at best) based on the announcements of a company spokesperson and a quarterly results announcement.

All of these are WP:SIRS-fails.

The book also declares itself as being for airline fans and comes from a speciality/fan-press publisher focuses on airline minutiae that it is hard to believe didn't come directly from the airline. For example, according to the content section of the book (visible in the preview here) it gives over an entire chapter (p. 112-115), of equal length to that covering the network (which is only p.88-91, not a quarter of the book), entitled "Enjoy the many pleasures of air travel with delicious in-flight meals" to all the in-flight meals that are offered by ANA. Would a list of ANA's in-flight meals suddenly be notable now?

And if AFD isn't clean-up, equally we shouldn't keep an entirely WP:TNT-worthy list that as a whole fails verification. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NLIST is pretty broad imo. The existence of the notability of some elements of a list is enough to SYNTH a list together as IVe understood it. What makes this list not notable but other airline lists notable? I am not saying OSE, just wondering what your view on the standard should be., Metallurgist (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think any are. Getting on 300 of them have been deleted/redirected/merged through consensus at AFD since the start of 2023. There’s fewer that 150 of them left. FOARP (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by DCsansei and the RFC linked by Avgeekamfoot. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 10:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added sources. Metallurgist (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I am siding with the earlier opinion, lets make it a subsection of an existing page. Bgrus22 (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good, sourced, useful article and per the above-mentioned RFC. Repeatedly nominating these articles in face of a clear consensus that they are acceptable is disruptive. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by DCsansei. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Avgeekamfot and others. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Nippon Airways#Destinations. A completely blatant violation of WP:NOT. We don't have articles on a subject just because sources exist. Otherwise, one could argue a list of every McDonald's location is also valid just because sourcing exists for that as well. Which is nonsense. We explicitly have WP:NOTGUIDE for this very exact reason. The editors above have given exactly zero arguments on how this passes those requirements. Every single one of these destination articles should be deleted. Go to WikiVoyage or any travel site that is actually about that. This is an encyclopedia. Silver seren^C 22:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, a nearly two-month AfC earlier this year on this very topic concluded that WP:NOT does not apply to destination articles. Avgeekamfot (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet WP:CCC exists. I don't particularly care about that discussion or the inane claims made there. It was wrong. I still consider this a blatant violation of WP:NOT. And considering the terrible quality of such destination articles across the wiki and the terrible types of sources propping them up all over the place (see WP:AEROROUTES), it seems clear that these articles aren't made to be encyclopedic. They are made for people to actually use them as travel guide info on what airports fly where and how to change their flight plans if their airline drops a flight. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, it seems quite clear that the actual AfD consensus on these destinations articles blatantly favors redirection/deletion, considering many, many past AfDs much more recently than that RfC you linked. So it appears consensus has already changed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TAROM destinations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jet Airways destinations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cathay Dragon destinations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vistara destinations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SkyUp Airlines destinations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jazeera Airways destinations, ect, ect. Silver seren^C 02:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that there is a list of these AfDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/AfD record.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The parent article for this airline has 3-8 times more pageviews than the articles whose destinations were deleted. However, it is comparable to Aeroflot, whose list of destinations was kept. The list also includes deletions of clearly non-notable companies [17][18], which are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Proper comparisons would be to previous attempts to delete this article. The last one was in 2024 and ended in 'No consensus', adding that The 2018 RFC is now six years old, would an updated RFC come to a similar conclusion. That RfC was conducted, and the 2018 RfC was overturned. This article has already survived five attempts to get rid of it.
Ultimately, the coverage provided above is sufficient for notability. The fact that the book also covers meals doesn't discredit it as a source. The Business Insider article provides a historical overview of the routes and doesn't just repeat press announcements. Even if the American version of Business Insider is disliked by editors, it is not a reason to discard the Japanese version. Finally, we should also keep WP:BIAS in mind, as most editors are unable to properly search for Japanese sources. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that addresses anything of what I said above. The Aeroflot AfD was the last one to ever have a Keep result and that was back in April of last year. In the 36 aircraft destination AfDs since then, every single one has returned a Delete/Merge/Redirect outcome. The consensus in AfD discussions seems to be quite clear that it is not an issue of sourcing, but about What Wikipedia Is Not, which is not being a travel guide for airplane passengers. Silver seren^C 21:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve AfDs were closed since the RfC. Two of them were challenged, and one even went to DRV (which itself ended as "No consensus"). But, as I can tell, both were ultimately decided on sourcing and not on WP:NOT. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is way more than twelve listed on the record since Aeroflot. Silver seren^C 23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said since the RfC, which was closed on 23 February 2025. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelob2678 is basically making a WP:POPULARPAGE argument. The 2018 RFC has never been formally overturned: there was a very different discussion earlier this year about two specific articles, the way in which the RFC question muddled different issues (i.e., it was specifically about British Airways and Heathrow Airport) predetermined the outcome. Notably, in the DELREV discussions since the January 2025 RFC (i.e., this one), that RFC was not found to have made any general decision about these articles.

"The fact that the book also covers meals doesn't discredit it as a source" - It literally gives as much coverage to the "delicious in-flight meals" as it does to the routes. I ask again: are the meals also notable based on that coverage? Or is this simply a niche, fan-interest, and non-independent source?

" The Business Insider article provides a historical overview of the routes and doesn't just repeat press announcements." - the sourcing in that article is 1) ANA's quarterly results, 2) ANA's CFO, 3) an ANA spokesperson, 4) the leader of ANA's financial statements team, 5) an announcement by Scandinavian Airlines, 6) an ANA spokesperson again, 7) ANA FACT BOOK 2024 (an ANA publication), 8) An ANA spokesperson yet again, 9) ANA's quarterly financials again, 10) ANA's CFO again. Yes it is just basically relaying ANA corporate communications. It is not for no reason that Business Insider (and this is the same Business Insider) is not listed as a reliable source at WP:RSNP. FOARP (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting DRV, Two of them relied on an RFC that determined that an airline destination list does not violate WP:NOT and The first two keep votes are correct in that the list does not violate WP:NOT per a recent RfC. There is a quote from another DRV, I strongly suspect that holding another RFC on this is just going to endorse the 2018 one, but when it comes back to AFD the airline fandom will again try to stymie deletion because any reason is used to ignore RFC results.

How is the publisher non-independent? You are correct that aviation fans are a target audience for aviation books, why does that matter? The Business Insider article is a secondary source, so it analyzes primary sources that inevitably originated from the company. I treat the following quotes (Google Translate) as analysis, In fact, from the end of 2024 to February 2025, ANA has launched three new European routes, and Sales on the three routes are only a small part of ANA HD’s overall sales, and The service of the three routes was postponed due to the corona disaster, so the service of the three routes will be an expansion of the long-awaited route for ANA, and As a result, regular flights between Japan and Scandinavia were temporarily extinguished and more. Based on the RSN discussion, the Pulitzer Prize-winning outlet wasn't given WP:GREL for some mysterious reason, as usual. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LegalOn Technologies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This technology company nowhere to meet WP:ORGCRITE. Fails Notability guidelines of a company. Filmyy (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Japan. Filmyy (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (COI): I’m affiliated with the subject but not paid to edit. Offering independent sources showing significant coverage:

• Financial Times feature (six companies pushing legal AI; reports 7,000+ users): https://www.ft.com/content/00ea7657-9f5c-45d5-9230-b6fc638d03e4

• The Japan Times and Bloomberg on the SoftBank Vision Fund Series D: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/06/24/business/corporate-business/softbank-legalforce/ ; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-23/softbank-vision-fund-s-4th-japan-investment-is-a-legal-tech-bet

• TechCrunch, Forbes, Law360 Pulse on the 2025 Series E and OpenAI collaboration: https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/24/softbank-backed-legalon-fuels-ai-for-in-house-legal-team-with-50m-series-e/ ; https://www.forbes.com/sites/zinnialee/2025/07/25/japans-legal-ai-startup-scores-50-million-round-led-by-goldman-sachs-partners-with-openai/ ; https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2367464/legalon-secures-50m-series-e-expands-openai-partnership

Other editors have improved neutrality and sourcing (see “edits since nomination”). Goldleafllc (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might not understand the full meaning of "independent source". It needs to be an independent publisher, sure, but the article *content* also needs to be independent. Simply regurgitating PR and funding announcements is not "independent content". A good essay at WP:SERIESA on this too. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with HelpfulRaccoon's assessment of sources as routine. GNG only requires multiple examples of significant coverage and these already exist in English. However, some native language sources:

I am also seeing many more examples of Japanese coverage on the company's news page (they link to the publishers). I did not go through all 80 pages but likely to be more; in any case, there's plenty to pass GNG. @Goldleafllc - keep in mind we can use Japanese sources on English Wikipedia. DCsansei (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP, a strict version of WP:GNG. Under this guideline, coverage entirely based on company announcements, executive interviews, press releases, etc. is non-independent. A few of your sources describe an accusation of illegal conduct which cannot be used to establish notability under the guideline. Other than that, the sources you have shown here are either non-independent or not significant coverage. Also, please put replies at the bottom of the page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only non-routine coverage is a listicle entry in the Financial Times, Most coverage is routine and/or non-independent coverage about fundraising, expansion, and product announcements. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Japanese sources from the comment above are quite solid, especially Nikkei and Logi Biz. NenadWeber (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources being "quite solid" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability. Also, did you read those sources? Why do you believe they meet NCORP criteria? The Nikkei reference is a survey of customers using legal ai technology (and not just this company's tech) with no in-depth original content about this company. The Logi Biz article regurgitates a press briefing - says it in the first sentence. Where is the original content?? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. LegalOn Technologies meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG through multiple reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. Major English-language coverage includes:
- Financial Times
- Japan Times and Bloomberg – reports on SoftBank Vision Fund investment;
- TechCrunch, Forbes, and Law360 Pulse – detailed coverage of its Series E and OpenAI collaboration.

Hkkingg (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that these are the same sources that are mentioned in Goldleafllc's comment above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis*** None of those sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. "Coverage" or mentions in well-known publications does not mean the company is notable.

Financial Times source profiles 6 companies but relies entirely on company information and quotes and is not in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
Japan Times source relies on the funding announcement, fails ORGIND
Bloomberg source is the same - you can even read the overlap between the two sources, also fails ORGIND
TechCrunch source, also relies on funding announcement and information from the company, no independent content, fails ORGIND
Forbes source, same as above. Fails for the same reason
Law360 Pulse source, same as the two above.

None of those sources meets GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We seem to be going round in circles. It has been pointed out that the sources do not contain sufficient in-depth "independent content" but none of the Keep !voters have engaged with that comment or pointed out why they disagree, and new !voters have merely repeated links to sources, again without elaboration. Can any of the Keep !voters kindly point to a specific paragraph in particular sources which they believe meets the criteria (that is, in-depth independent content about the topic company). HighKing⁺⁺ 09:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.@HighKing: While I sympathize with your frustration we have a clear protocol for just this type of scenario which is WP:SIRS. Inevitably the burden of SIRS more often falls on those arguing to delete the article. If you want to break this cycle I suggest doing a table analysis. Otherwise, the conversation is likely to close as no consensus, which would be an acceptable outcome for those wanting to keep the article. There's very little incentive for keep voters to engage further, and as a reviewer I personally don't want to go through the headache of translating Japanese sources. I'm guessing that without a SIRS analysis you aren't going to get much further participation because of the volume of materials to evaluate and the language barrier. That leaves the WP:CONSENSUS here as inconclusive. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Making a request that editors arguing to Keep this article engage with HighKing's comment about current sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Add images here using the [[:File:FILENAME]] semicolon to start the link

Templates

Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template

Redirects

Add redirects here using the {{no redirect|REDIRECT}} template

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Japan

Categories

Images

Templates

Redirects