Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans in 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, consensus is that the improvements in the article during the AFD show that the topic is legitimate and notable. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in Japan

Delete one-line apparent dicdef but sufficiently mangled I wouldn't wish it upon Wiktionary. Are we to expect identical articles of Fooians in non-Fooland for each and every Foo? No, let's stop this here and now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does nothing more than state the obvious. Don't see how it could be expanded. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Keep after seeing the revised article. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Even worse than it looks at first glance: "The Americans in Japan refer to American-born Japanese citizens in Japan." Apparently limited to persons who (a) have Japanese citizenship and who (b) happen to have been born in the United States. I agree with Carlos that this is opens the door to many more unnecessary articles of X-landers who were born in Y-land. Keep A much better article now than it was 24 hours ago. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Mandsford. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand-crappy stub but worthwhile topic-thus is my mission given for this evening. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition sounds like original research (who requires all those conditions for this term be used?), and there is nothing else. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no longer applies. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even make sense as a list, pure cruft. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it'd be useless even if expanded. An article about Westerners in Japan might make sense, but not Americans.24.237.164.151 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve This is a valid encyclopedic topic. The article has already been improved and some objections are already obsolete. An article about Westerners in Japan would lack focus. Fg2 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve notable topic, as demonstrated for example by the multiple reliable sources now listed in the "Further reading" section of the article. All deletion arguments have been addressed or are invalid: nominator's argument consists of WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST (besides, we already have a series of well-sourced articles about immigrant groups in Japan, like Vietnamese people in Japan, Iranians in Japan, so it's a bit late to try to put forth a "look what this might open the floodgates to!" argument) and the bizarre definition about "Americans in Japan" only referring to Japanese citizens born in American has been removed. cab (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With roughly 200ish countries, that means there's going to be 40,000 NationalityX in CountryY articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ALLORNOTHING. No one here is suggesting that we create 40,000 "Fooians in Barland" articles to fill out a bunch of templates. The topic of this article is clearly notable, as proven by the sources; Laotians in Paraguay, Ethiopians in Kazakhstan, or whatever other fanciful examples, have no bearing on this debate. cab (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. I also think that the article's current state reads like a disassociated list of studies that use Americans living in Japan as their subject demographic. The History section is easily dwarfed by the content in Japan-United States relations, and the Notable Individuals section is already covered by both CAT:American people in Japan and CAT:American expatriates in Japan. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Categories do not substitute for lists; they are complementary to each other, not the least because a list can be annotated. See WP:CLS. Also, I don't see the History section as overlapping with Japan-United States relations; that article mainly focuses on intra-governmental contacts, whereas the point of this article, like the others in the "Fooians in Japan" series, is to discuss the actual expatriate community. cab (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fooians in Bariland indeed. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improvement made since the start have demonstrated that the subject can be treated encyclopedically, if in a rather different direction than the initial stub. I'm actually pleasently suprised by the improvement -- good job there, guys. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an American who lived for part of a year in Japan, I think this is a worthwhile topic. The article itself needs a lot of improvement however. It is not clear if it is about Americans of Japanese ancestry who moved to Japan, or any American living there for any reason and any length of time. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly re-title- maybe something like "American Expatriates in Japan". With regards to the 'Fooians in Barland' argument: most countries do not have significant, documented periods where significant numbers of people from one country were living in another. With the American post-WWII occupation, we have a documented phenomenon of residency by American citizens in Japan. There's been quite a bit written about the role of Americans during Japan's post-war reconstruction, as well as ongoing issues regarding the presence of American military bases in Japan. Japanese communities in the West have also been sending individuals back to Japan as students (including to receive training and ordination as Pure Land ministers). Notability will take care of Fooians in Barland articles without a comparable documented history. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.