599:, 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.--
544:
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. --
566:
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
906:
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.
637:- 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. Knowledge (XXG) should select only the most notable of these lists, such as the
156:
298:? 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
891:
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. --
875:
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
870:
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
543:
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
980:
Deserves an encyclopedia article. Could benefit from some editing, as I've discussed on the talk page. The
Knowledge (XXG) article does not present a non-neutral point of view. Whether the subject of the article does is irrelevant; Knowledge (XXG) policy certainly permits articles about things that
905:
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
449:
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
401:
Some people are missing an important point. This list was not made up by a
Knowledge (XXG) 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
565:
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
373:
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
673:
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
890:
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
683:. 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 Knowledge (XXG). I have changed my opinion to keep.
924:
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.
472:
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. --
494:
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
125:
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.
1010:
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.
454:
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
231:
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.
842:
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"?
302:. 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.--
503:) 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
85:
80:
89:
856:
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. --
72:
588:
118:
993:. Knowledge (XXG) only requires that the Knowledge (XXG) article about these topics refrain from presenting a non-neutral point of view as being Knowledge (XXG)'s opinion.
592:
258:
613:
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.) --
524:
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 Knowledge (XXG) article.
828:
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). --
425:
185:
450:
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
337:
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.
458:, 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.--
741:
The non-neutral point of view is in the subject of the article, not in the Knowledge (XXG) article. Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of the subject is neutral.
876:
one occasion (not just by me). Please consider the fact that treating other contributors with respect means more than saying "please" and "thank you".
678:
504:
1022:
1002:
948:
934:
915:
900:
885:
865:
851:
837:
823:
805:
791:
769:
750:
731:
717:
692:
664:
650:
622:
608:
579:
553:
533:
516:
482:
467:
440:
415:
391:
365:
346:
332:
311:
270:
248:
226:
200:
173:
135:
54:
17:
928:
894:
859:
831:
799:
763:
596:
299:
76:
159:
68:
60:
384:
241:
219:
1040:
36:
779:
48:. Also, plain lists of items (including people) can not be copyrighted as there is no original creative content. ···
356:
I think it should be kept but it needs renaming as it sort of says that the world doesn't respect Japanese people.
257:
It isn't copy vio perse, I don't consider it grounds for article deletion. The article should follow the format of
1039:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
266:
196:
169:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
727:
660:
618:
604:
575:
549:
478:
463:
307:
871:
this when contemplating "a teaching moment" when an editor comments "not-notable" or "unencyclopedic".
328:
131:
262:
209:
Granted, but it appears we're republishing the list. Doesn't that make this a copyright violation?
192:
165:
162:
944:
911:
881:
847:
819:
787:
723:
656:
614:
600:
571:
545:
512:
474:
459:
406:
that someone is respected by the world; it is sufficient that they are on the published list.
303:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
374:
contests like the Super Bowl "World Champions" - you know it isn't true, but it sounds good.
380:
361:
237:
215:
587:, I was not convinced to say "delete it" yesterday, however, after checking the debate at
324:
127:
655:
Of course, any lists have to pass the notability. It seems this one does. (See above) --
989:
713:
681:
1018:
998:
746:
688:
646:
529:
436:
411:
342:
49:
760:
as encyclopedic per our First pillar as such lists typically appear in almanacs. --
940:
907:
877:
843:
815:
783:
675:
508:
106:
983:
507:
because the award and nomination itself are both notable, as a counter-example.
375:
357:
323:
that the likes of Atsuko Miyaji and Amon Miyamoto are "respected" by the world?
232:
210:
561:
The article should really be called "The 100 Japanese that the Japanese people
920:
I find the argument that this article and the list it concerns as akin to the
709:
796:
I don't think it's unencyclopedic, which is why I wrote "encyclopedic." --
282:- After looking through the list, I just burst into laughter mostly due to
1013:
994:
742:
684:
642:
638:
525:
432:
407:
338:
283:
149:
145:
814:
as it is to claim "delete as unencyclopedic" without further comment.
810:
Don't be coy. It is just as invalid to claim "keep as encylopedic"
499:
notable or how the magazine is notable)? We don't (I just checked,
295:
152:
144:
This is not a randomly assembled list. It is a list much like the
1033:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
286:, blue robotic cat coming from the future. He can be said he is
261:, which doesn't list all 100, but lists notable highlights.
811:
113:
102:
98:
94:
722:Well, any lists of this kind are POV inherenty. --
593:Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century
259:Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century
981:present non-neutral points of view, for example,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1043:). No further edits should be made to this page.
319:This may sound silly, but can anyone actually
8:
158:Some Japanese news articles about the list
426:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
186:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
505:80th_Academy_Awards_nominees_and_winners
424:: This debate has been included in the
184:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
69:100 Japanese respected by the world
61:100 Japanese respected by the world
24:
597:New York Times Best Seller list
300:New York Times Best Seller list
294:. Besides, the cat is Japanese
1:
708:as POV and unencyclopedic. --
641:—and this isn't one of them.
930:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
896:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
861:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
833:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
801:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
765:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
939:So that's the answer. Ok.
927:Happy editing! Sincerely,
893:Happy editing! Sincerely,
858:Happy editing! Sincerely,
830:Happy editing! Sincerely,
798:Happy editing! Sincerely,
762:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1060:
1023:06:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1003:00:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
949:20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
935:20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
916:19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
901:19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
886:19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
866:19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
852:18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
838:18:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
824:18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
806:17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
792:17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
770:17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
751:10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
732:00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
718:23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
693:13:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
665:00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
651:12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
623:00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
609:11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
580:09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
554:00:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
534:10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
517:22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
483:00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
468:22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
441:21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
416:21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
402:up to Knowledge (XXG) to
392:20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
366:18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
347:10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
333:17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
312:17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
271:16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
249:16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
227:16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
201:15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
174:15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
155:. Google Translated page
136:14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
55:01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
1036:Please do not modify it.
589:WP:AFD/Lists of Time 100
32:Please do not modify it.
812:without further comment
292:respected by the world
44:The result was
780:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
443:
429:
389:
387:So let it be done
382:
246:
244:So let it be done
239:
224:
222:So let it be done
217:
203:
189:
1051:
1038:
933:
931:
899:
897:
864:
862:
836:
834:
804:
802:
768:
766:
430:
420:
385:
381:
358:Kevin Rutherford
242:
238:
220:
216:
190:
180:
116:
110:
92:
52:
34:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1041:deletion review
1034:
929:
926:
895:
892:
860:
857:
832:
829:
800:
797:
764:
761:
591:and history of
388:
245:
223:
148:, assembled by
112:
83:
67:
64:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1057:
1055:
1046:
1045:
1028:
1026:
1025:
1005:
990:Atlas Shrugged
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
773:
772:
755:
754:
753:
735:
734:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
627:
626:
625:
582:
556:
538:
537:
536:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
418:
395:
394:
386:
368:
351:
350:
349:
314:
276:
275:
274:
273:
263:AtaruMoroboshi
252:
251:
243:
229:
221:
204:
193:AtaruMoroboshi
178:
176:
166:AtaruMoroboshi
123:
122:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1056:
1044:
1042:
1037:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
986:
985:
979:
976:
975:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
932:
923:
919:
918:
917:
913:
909:
904:
903:
902:
898:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
874:
869:
868:
867:
863:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
839:
835:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
803:
795:
794:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
767:
759:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
737:
736:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
694:
690:
686:
682:
679:
676:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
635:
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
581:
577:
573:
569:
564:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
493:
490:
484:
480:
476:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
448:
445:
444:
442:
438:
434:
427:
423:
419:
417:
413:
409:
405:
400:
397:
396:
393:
390:
383:
379:
378:
372:
369:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
247:
240:
236:
235:
230:
228:
225:
218:
214:
213:
208:
205:
202:
198:
194:
187:
183:
179:
177:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
129:
120:
115:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1035:
1032:
1027:
1012:
1007:
988:
982:
977:
921:
872:
757:
738:
705:
633:
632:
629:
601:Caspian blue
584:
572:TomorrowTime
567:
562:
558:
540:
521:
500:
496:
491:
460:Caspian blue
455:
451:
446:
421:
403:
398:
376:
370:
353:
320:
316:
304:Caspian blue
291:
287:
279:
233:
211:
206:
181:
141:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
984:Das Kapital
778:Please see
568:weak delete
325:Ecoleetage
128:Ecoleetage
639:Time 100
284:Doraemon
150:Newsweek
146:Time 100
119:View log
941:Protonk
908:Protonk
878:Protonk
844:Protonk
816:Protonk
784:Protonk
739:Comment
559:Comment
522:Comment
509:Protonk
456:respect
447:Comment
399:Comment
371:Comment
354:Comment
317:Comment
280:Comment
207:Comment
86:protect
81:history
706:Delete
634:Delete
585:Delete
570:here.
492:Delete
452:ningen
377:Xymmax
296:ningen
234:Xymmax
212:Xymmax
114:delete
90:delete
563:think
404:prove
321:prove
288:loved
153:Japan
117:) – (
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
1019:talk
1008:Keep
999:talk
987:and
978:Keep
945:talk
922:Time
912:talk
882:talk
848:talk
820:talk
788:talk
758:Keep
747:talk
728:talk
724:Taku
714:talk
710:DAJF
689:talk
680:and
661:talk
657:Taku
647:talk
630:Keep
619:talk
615:Taku
605:talk
595:and
576:talk
550:talk
546:Taku
541:Keep
530:talk
513:talk
501:whew
497:they
479:talk
475:Taku
464:talk
437:talk
422:Note
412:talk
362:talk
343:talk
329:talk
308:talk
290:not
267:talk
197:talk
182:Note
170:talk
142:Keep
132:talk
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
46:keep
1014:DGG
995:Fg2
873:You
743:Fg2
685:Jll
643:Jll
526:Fg2
433:Fg2
428:.
408:Fg2
339:Fg2
188:.
51:日本穣
1021:)
1001:)
947:)
925:--
914:)
884:)
850:)
822:)
790:)
782:.
749:)
730:)
716:)
691:)
677:,
663:)
649:)
621:)
607:)
578:)
552:)
532:)
515:)
481:)
466:)
439:)
414:)
364:)
345:)
331:)
310:)
269:)
199:)
172:)
164:.
161:,
134:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
1017:(
997:(
943:(
910:(
880:(
846:(
818:(
786:(
745:(
726:(
712:(
687:(
659:(
645:(
617:(
603:(
574:(
548:(
528:(
511:(
477:(
462:(
435:(
431:—
410:(
360:(
341:(
327:(
306:(
265:(
195:(
191:—
168:(
130:(
121:)
111:(
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.