Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Japanese respected by the world

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. Also, plain lists of items (including people) can not be copyrighted as there is no original creative content. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 Japanese respected by the world[edit]

Another randomly assembled, highly subjective list with no objective encyclopedic value (and a tenuous grasp at reality, with Madama Butterfly and Godzilla mistaken for real people). The high number of red links doesn't help, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a randomly assembled list. It is a list much like the Time 100, assembled by Newsweek Japan. Google Translated page [1] Some Japanese news articles about the list [2], [3]. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Granted, but it appears we're republishing the list. Doesn't that make this a copyright violation? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment - I do think that an article about the list, that highlights a few people, and links to the Newsweek Japan site, would be OK. In its current form though, I think there's a problem. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't copy vio perse, I don't consider it grounds for article deletion. The article should follow the format of Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century, which doesn't list all 100, but lists notable highlights. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After looking through the list, I just burst into laughter mostly due to Doraemon, blue robotic cat coming from the future. He can be said he is loved not respected by the world. Besides, the cat is Japanese ningen? The title name is quite in exaggeration (maybe good for selling the magazine in Japan). Unfortunately, many of the listed people are not as much famous as Japanese think. The list is like Japanese think that these people can be famous in the world. The problem is that the list can only hold one side, the Japanese version of the Newsweek unlike New York Times Best Seller list. It has official standard, but the list in question does not seem to have such. The list may introduce people who do not know Japan get to know who are influential Japanese in Japan though.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may sound silly, but can anyone actually prove that the likes of Atsuko Miyaji and Amon Miyamoto are "respected" by the world? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a valid question, but it's one to ask Newsweek. Can anyone actually prove that Newsweek published those names in the list? That's the question to ask. Fg2 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it should be kept but it needs renaming as it sort of says that the world doesn't respect Japanese people. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a little is being lost in the translation. This is best understood as a Top 100 list for Japanese consumption, not a list of people the Japanese really think have worldwide prominance. It's sort of the pop-culture equivalent of Americans calling the winners of national professional sports contests like the Super Bowl "World Champions" - you know it isn't true, but it sounds good. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people are missing an important point. This list was not made up by a Wikipedia editor. It was compiled by a major magazine having a wide circulation and published. The article does not claim that Madama Butterfly or Doraemon is human; it only reports that they are on the list. It is not up to Wikipedia to prove that someone is respected by the world; it is sufficient that they are on the published list. Fg2 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you're the one missing the whole point. None confused to say that the list it made up by one Wikipeian, rather many saying that how notable and worthy the list would be outside of Japan. Because the list is clearly in no relation with "world"'s recognition and "respect", or some entries are not even human unlike the original title. A local version of newsweek is not comparable to Times and New York Times' lists. What do you think about why I said ningen instead of nipponjin as referring to Doraemon? Actually, the list looks like a catch praise to sell the magazine to Japanese in Japan. Just because one local branch of Newsweek named them/characters respect, other people consider the unworldly notable people to become revered by the world? The list may be useful, but the title and entries are very humorous.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I understand, a topic on which an article is written doesn't need to be notable globally in order to be consider "notable" here. Thus, to deem this list to be notable, it suffices that if it is notable in the Japanese-speaking world. -- Taku (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently pov. Why are we stenographers for one magazine's list of the 100 most respected japanese? How is their ranking of japanese people/fictional characters notable (as in how is the ranking itself and list notable, not how are they notable or how the magazine is notable)? We don't (I just checked, whew) keep the maxim hot 100 as a running list on wikipedia (that isn't otherstuffexists but a claim that it is probably good policy to not have an article on either). We keep a list of 80th_Academy_Awards_nominees_and_winners because the award and nomination itself are both notable, as a counter-example. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that it presents a non-neutral point of view, but that is not relevant. The point of view is in the subject of the article, not the Wikipedia article. Fg2 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that the title of the article doesn't sound encyclopedic. But I didn't choose that; it is just a translation of the original title. Also, I understand some of those in the list may not be respected by the world, in our opinion. But again it is not up to us to determine that, because that would be POV, original research. It's like a academy awards; some movies that have received an award are terrible and don't actually deserve the award, but that's really not for us to decide that. What we do is simply cite and report what appears in reliable sources. It is a NPOV thing to report some POV facts or opinions. I don't think the reliability is in question, so the only remaining question is whether the list is notable or not. The Google search shows this is indeed the case. It may not be notable in the English speaking world, it seems so in Japanese media to some extent. -- Taku (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should really be called "The 100 Japanese that the Japanese people think are respected by the world" :/ For instance, I have had the experience of being harangued for not knowing who Heinrich Coudenhove was - the Japanese claim that he is the man behind the idea of EU, but frankly, he's not really that important, and I doubt any Japanese would ever even hear of him, if his wife wasn't Japanese. So we're not even talking about a minor, poorly known historical person, we're talking about the wife of a minor, poorly known historical person. All in all, some of the entries have merit, some do not, but since this is an externaly compiled list it's either delete or keep. The article could possibly survive if it had an introduction regarding the way the Japanese view themselves, which would explain some of the more obscure entries (such as the one I pointed out), but that would probably constitute OR, so I'll have to go with a weak delete here. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was not convinced to say "delete it" yesterday, however, after checking the debate at WP:AFD/Lists of Time 100 and history of Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century and New York Times Best Seller list, I say so. The mentioned articles with international notability do not include the whole list, but only mention a few people as examples because of U.S copyright law. Even if the Japan copyright law is mild on copy-pasting the whole lists of the Japanese Newsweek, well here is English Wikepedia under U.S law. Although people inserted the whole list, but soon the addition was reverted and deleted by others. The articles now introduce about how the list was created and what standard they have for the list, etc. If the article in question would survive from the AFD, the whole entries should be deleted and contain info about judges, intentions, history etc from secondary sources.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know this was discussed at some length at the talkpage of the article. (By the way, the Japanese copyright law tends to be stricter than the US-one.) -- Taku (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ - almost every news publication regularly produces lists of the top 50 or 100 things - top 100 most livable cities, 100 most beautiful cars of all time, 100 most influential lawyers in America, 100 most powerful people in New York real estate and so on and so forth - since it is an easy way of filling a few pages. e.g. Just type "100 most" into Google and you will get over four million references. Wikipedia should select only the most notable of these lists, such as the Time 100—and this isn't one of them. Jll (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, any lists have to pass the notability. It seems this one does. (See above) -- Taku (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have real problems trying to determine whether it is notable in the Japanese-speaking world since I don't speak Japanese. However I have found several biographies on the web where people have thought it sufficiently significant that they have mentioned that they are on the list - for example [4], [5] and [6]. The authors obviously felt it would be seen as something significant to the people reading those biographies. I think that the sort of lists that similar people in the English-speaking world cite would probably make it into Wikipedia. I have changed my opinion to keep. Jll (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and unencyclopedic. --DAJF (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any lists of this kind are POV inherenty. -- Taku (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The non-neutral point of view is in the subject of the article, not in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is neutral. Fg2 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic per our First pillar as such lists typically appear in almanacs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unencyclopedic, which is why I wrote "encyclopedic." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be coy. It is just as invalid to claim "keep as encylopedic" without further comment as it is to claim "delete as unencyclopedic" without further comment. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have further comment: "per our First pillar as such lists typically appear in almanacs" (the First pillar says that we include elements of almanacs as well). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that you do now. That's why I linked the diff of that comment being added to your original claim. did you really think that I was confused and thought you wrote "unencyclopedic"? Protonk (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume things one way or the other. What you see though is the correct way to respond to a link to that essay, i.e. to amend your comment and strengthen your argument. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blunt, then. It seems to me that you hold editors who vote delete in contempt. You badger editors with subsections of an essay but fail to see the connection when applied to you. This makes me very unhappy, because without mutual respect this process becomes unpleasant. Please think about this when contemplating "a teaching moment" when an editor comments "not-notable" or "unencyclopedic". You may feel that they are ignorant of the discussion conventions or that their comment may be misinterpreted as persuasive by a closing administrator. To the subject of the chiding remark or link, it feels like condescension. I don't need to remind you that this has been brought up to you on more than one occasion (not just by me). Please consider the fact that treating other contributors with respect means more than saying "please" and "thank you". Protonk (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please be sure to use edit summaries, i.e. so we know if the post being made here is a reply, comment, argument, etc. In any event, if you think it's condescending to link to the essay, then consider that you did the same thing here. But as always, the key is not to derail the discussion on the article to make it about editors. The article is what matters here and in that regard it is verifiable as pointed out by others above and as I point out is exactly the kind of thing we see in alamanacs, which means there are multiple reasons why this article is beneficial to our project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't directed at anyone but you. I'm not making a claim that the article should be kept or binned based on my opinion of your actions. This is a conversation with you. If you need me to include diffs of warnings and what-not when I'm conversing specifically with you, that's fine, I will do that. For most cases I would prefer to just make statements rather than clutter the text up with your actions of comments that you responded to (which would imply that you would retain some vague memory of them). You are right to say that the article is what matters here but the fate of the article is mediated by discussion, so the discussion becomes important. If you'd like I can restrict entreaties to your talk page specifically, but I don't appreciate the ostensibly detached insistence that debate return to the article when it becomes critical. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the argument that this article and the list it concerns as akin to the Time 100 quite compelling as a reason for keeping. I do recommend that someone with knowledge of the Japanese translated links indicated above also include those in the article as well and maybe even add some kind of reception/reaction section concerning the list. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the answer. Ok. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deserves an encyclopedia article. Could benefit from some editing, as I've discussed on the talk page. The Wikipedia article does not present a non-neutral point of view. Whether the subject of the article does is irrelevant; Wikipedia policy certainly permits articles about things that present non-neutral points of view, for example, Das Kapital and Atlas Shrugged. Wikipedia only requires that the Wikipedia article about these topics refrain from presenting a non-neutral point of view as being Wikipedia's opinion. Fg2 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence and importance of the list has been demonstrated; that it does not repreent a definitive judgement on the actual fame of the people listed or not listed needs to be made clear, but such an article can be acceptable. DGG (talk) 06:51, 15 July 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.