Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Japan relations

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 speedy delete. as A3 by User:UtherSRG Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil–Japan relations

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

~~Article contains no material information. Non-notable bilateral relations. Gattosby (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i see no material whatsoever besides see also. What's the point of having an article without any material . . Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has less than 30 edits. And with two sizable countries, each with significant foreign relations implications on a global scale, there's bound to be more to be added. CallMeIrresponsible (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC) — CallMeIrresponsible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Let's call this for what it is, a disambiguation page and an unnecessary one at that. That it has less than 30 edits after two years doesn't suggest that there's bound to be more to be added during this decade. Anyone clicking on this and expecting something is going to be doing the WTF dance. At first, I thought that someone had erased content, but it's never been more than this. If anyone wants to actually create an intelligent article about Brazil-Japan relations, I presume that they will also be intelligent enough to figure out what to call it, but I see no reason to have a placeholder. We don't have an article called Brazil–China relations or Brazil-Germany relations yet either, but I'm sure that when someone cares enough to write a good article they will do so. Mandsford 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A3. No content. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A3. And have tagged the page as such. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (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.