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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonara Nuclear Power Plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An organization that has only been mentioned tangentially in articles about the political views of the writer Kenzaburo Oe. Although this is not a make-or-break point, it is interesting to note that there is no Japanese Wikipedia article for this organization, and the claim of "8.3 million signatures" is cited to its own website. Shii (tock) 07:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I haven't looked for sources yet, but I found the Japanese Wikipedia article at ja:さようなら原発1000万人アクション. I added the Japanese name to the article as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Unfortunately the news reports cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article are no longer accessible online, but I did find a few snippets about this group in more recent Japanese news sources.[1][2][3][4] The coverage isn't significant enough to persuade me that this is a definite keep, but I am assuming good faith that that the sources I couldn't gain access to have some information about the group, and when that is coupled with the sources I found it is just about enough to persuade me that we shouldn't delete this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, looking Shii's PROD rationale, it looks like the group was only mentioned briefly in the news reports cited in the article. I'm not sure if the same is true for the other news reports cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article, but judging from their titles that may well be the case. This puts my keep on much shakier ground. Is there any article we can merge this with? That may be the best solution. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  And a few seconds searching turned up Anti-nuclear power movement in Japan, where this group is already mentioned. So, I am going to change my recommendation to merge to that article, unless some more substantial sources turn up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with a merge. Shii (tock) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm changing back to keep after reading the Critical Issues in Contemporary Japan source that Johnfos found below. I've used it to expand the article a bit as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 8.3 million signatures and an important, still-unfolding major controversy over nuclear energy in Japan suggest that, though still in stub form, this is a notable topic important for further development. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This argument seems like a variant of WP:BIG or WP:ITSIMPORTANT to me. Neither the number of signatures nor the strength of the nuclear controversy in Japan are good reasons for keeping the article - it's all about the coverage the topic has in reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My rationale is similar to Mr. Stradivarius. I could not find sourcing beyond his, but what we have currently is enough to confirm the basic existence and operation of the organizations. For the purposes of notability I would agree with giving the article the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Japanese news articles tend to be deleted more quickly than in the west, so I don't holld the dead links against them. If the organization continues its activities, we should be able to find more. If none resurface after a few months, this always can be renominated. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already prodded the article a few months ago. Oh well. If anyone can find an article that is about the organization itself I will revoke the nomination. Shii (tock) 16:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Merge any pertinent details with Anti-nuclear power movement in Japan. The Huffington Post source cited mentions Oe's activities, but does not even mention this group by name. --DAJF (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I haven't done a comprehensive search, but this Bloomberg source [5] provides some useful history of the group: “Another severe nuclear accident could occur,” said Oe, who is among the nine founding members of the “Sayonara Nuclear Power Plants” campaign launched last June. “There is no proof it won’t happen again.” The initiative aims to collect 10 million signatures to urge the government to phase out nuclear power generation and shift to clean energy and energy-saving measures. So far, 5 million signatures have been collected, said Satoshi Kamata, a freelance journalist and another founding member. Johnfos (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that is an incidental mention. Shii (tock) 06:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just dabbling again, and found a few new useful scholarly works: Critical issues in contemporary japan (by Jeff Kingston) and Demanding a safer tomorrow: Japan's anti-nuclear rallies in the summer of 2012, which is unfortunately behind a paywall. I'm not expecting that these will satisfy you either Shii, but they are just indications of what is out there. I think we have come a long way since you first mistakenly said that "there is no Japanese Wikipedia article for this organization" and questioned the 8.3 million figure. Prof. Kingston says over 8 million signatures were collected as of early March 2013. Johnfos (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anthropology Today is a good citation which I hope someone can pull. That fulfills the request I made above so I will allow this nomination to be closed. Shii (tock) 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critical Issues in Contemporary Japan has a good half-page on the organisation, which is enough to persuade me that the article should be kept. And I won't be flip-flopping this time. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Hindu had an editorial titled "Sayonara nuclear power"[6] and Japanese Time Out an article titled "Sayonara Nuclear Power Plants!",[7] both in 2012. Are these the sort of cites being sought to show notability? Rwendland (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither one is acceptable, however, sources have been found. Shii (tock) 06:29, 29 January 2014 (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.