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. The crux of the arguments to delete seem to hinge on the idea that appropriate sources are not currently attached to the article. Of course that is preferred but the keep camp seems to have demonstrated that the sources do exist and this person is notable, it is just that the sources are in Japanese and unfortunately no users fluent in both Japanese and English have as yet worked to resolve this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shozo Fujita

[edit]

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

Not sourced, fails WP:Notability 2011 PROD declined. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. John Z (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not be too easy to get stuff on the web in English, as his works and works on him are almost all in Japanese, but from the Japanese page, he is clearly a notable figure. Sengo Seishin no Seijigaku: Maruyama Masao, Fujita Shōzō, Hagiwara Nobutoshi (Political Theory of the Postwar Ethos) is the beginning of an review in English of a book in Japanese devoted to him & two others. This appears to be a short book on him. He also influenced Miriam Rom Silverberg, obit here, who could also do with an article. Worldcat holdings on this Shozo Fujita. Not all on this Shozo Fujita, but 771 gbooks hits for this search. DGG should be the authority on this one, though. :-) John Z (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this person is of any notability to the English Wikipedia. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 23:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to indicate or verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no requirement that sources be in the article, or that they be in English, or that they even exist in English, for notability. It is quite clear that this person is notable according to en Wikipedia guidelines, that he was a quite significant academic and thinker. This is not at all a borderline case, but a "leading intellectual of 'postwar Japan'" as the review above puts it. He just wrote in Japanese & most but not all sources on him are in Japanese.John Z (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We're all aware of WP:NONENG which doesn't require English sources for the English Wikipedia, but they are obviously highly preferred. That's irrelevant, the sources here are slim to begin with and don't establish any notability. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It did seem to me that your delete was hard to square with WP:NONENG. There are many sources out there, and they clearly prove strong notability by any standard. Presses don't print collected works of nobodies. People don't write books about nobodies, or review books about them, or call them "leading intellectuals of 'postwar Japan'".John Z (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. And none of them are in the article. Subjects aren't encyclopedic because a lot of stuff pops up on Google. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 04:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's another ref:

Kevin M Doak. "Review essay, Fujita Shozo, Zentaishugi no Jidai Keiken [Experiencing the Period of Totalitarianism]." Social Science Japan Journal 13.1 (1998): 159-162.

--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable sources. It doesn't matter whether the sources are english (WP:NONENG) but it does matter if sources are reliable. The one given source doesn't appear to be reliable and doesn't look there are any. Vacation9 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with John Z.There is sufficient evidence of his being an authority in his field. That his writings and the sources are not in English is totally irrelevant. I am prepared to take the factual information in the jaWP as accurate for Japanese topics, (and similarly elsewhere) though of course we have our own standards of /notability , which is any particular case may be more of less stringent than theirs. And we also have to be alive to the possibility of spam elsewhere--but that's not a likely problem here. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 4 November 2012 (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.