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 delete. I'm discounting Hot cake syrup's opinion, as it makes little sense.  Sandstein  08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Army and Navy members in service in East Asia during World War II[edit]

List of Japanese Army and Navy members in service in East Asia during World War II (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)

A bit strange list. It is absurd to allow unnotable people or red links, but it is better to have a category rather than a giant list. Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A category could be used to list notable members of the Japanese military who served in some theater in WW2. The only reason for a list with redlinks is that it might encourage someone to create an article about the presumably notable person. That seems doubtful in this case. A list of potentially millions of nonnotable persons who were in an army or navy during a world war is inappropriate. When a redlink name is included, are we to assume that the name was not shared by hundreds or thousands of other Japanese persons, or that these persons so famous that scholars of the war would know who is referred to (like Audie Murphy of the US)? Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this list is a magnet for people to include the names of their fondly remembered but nonnotable ancestors. Do we have lists like this for other belligerent nations and for other wars? Edison (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A category would be fair enough. This is a crazy list that will need to have a few million items to be completed, most of which will not meet WP:N for an individual article. KTC (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Akashiba Yaezo 赤柴八重蔵 ja article [1]; Otozō Yamada; Shizuo Yokoyama are currently the first three redlinks. This is not an indiscriminate list, and could easily be moved and/or split to Japanese flag officers of World War II or J~ Army generals ~/ J~ Navy admirals ~. Notable topic which we are notably undercovering. Those without articles can be pruned, but two of the three I linked were merely under different character/order. Dru of Id (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With its present title it an extremely indiscriminate list, since millions of persons qualify just for serving in that military force. Such a list should be limited to "notable" members of that military, and unreferenced redlinks are inappropriate. It is the job of the person wanting a name in the list to justify it with a reliable source, which some other Wikipedia is not. It is a magnet for unreferenced redlink names, and they appear to be the majority. Purge the list of unreferenced redlinks, clarify in the lede that only notable names are to be added, and the situation is better. Edison (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there is a category, a list is justified also; it can contain more information than a list, helpful both for browsing and research--it needs to be added here, but that is a case for improvement, not deletion. Assuming the red linked names are equally notable , then the stimulation to create those articles is a very full justification for a list; helping articles about notable historic people get added to Wikipedia is the best of justification! DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it can", "Assuming the red linked names are equally notable" - but first is only "can" and second is unverifiable Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless someone can come up with some very good prose in the article to justify the list, I don't see the point of it. We don't have a List of Iraqi Army and Navy members in service in the Gulf War or List of Vietnamese Army and Navy members in service in the Vietnam War, and we shouldn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI am be greatly interested in this article, it should be keep.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ILIKEIT - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "I like it" arguments are irrelevant and contrary to Wikipedia notability guidelines and guidelines for lists. How is anyone to know which of the redlink persons who lived in the Japanese empire during WW2 who bore a particular name is the intended one? A list of unreferenced redlink names of people who were in a war where tens of millions fought is unencyclopedic and sets up the prospect of countless similar lists, with vandals free to insert their own and their friends' names, or their teacher's name if he is of the appropriate ethnicity. Do we really want List of Soviet military members in World War 2, List of German military members in World War 2 etc with millions of unrefrenced redlinks? If someone inserted "Fuji Kobiaji" (a fictional character from the McHale's Navy TV program), how long would the name remain in the list? I see no screen to keep out vandal entries and nonnotable veterans, and to keep it from being simply a memorial. Is it appropriate to immediately remove the unreferenced redlinks from this list? The obligation is on the person adding a name to at least include a reliable source as a reference, documenting that the person is notable enough to eventually get his own article. Edison (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing any valid reasons for an infinitely long list such as this. A category serves the same purpose just as well and avoids any of the problems of including large numbers of red links or unsourced entries on this list. --DAJF (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is one of a series of bizzare lists of Japanese people of the Pacific War created during the very early days of Wikipedia. Based on the other such lists, some of these people will be very low ranking and entirely non-notable. This is much too broad a topic for a proper list (it would contain thousands of names if it was expanded an limited to notable people alone). Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Indiscriminate list that Nick-D does a very good job of explaining the reasons for deletion of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per others above, the scope is way too broad for a concise article. ThemFromSpace 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per DGG and there are few blue links also. There is no harm in keeping the list. This topic (list) is notable despite of majority of names being red-link. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It_does_not_do_any_harm Bulwersator (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there are some benefits to lists (for instance, they are more likely to show up in Google searches; for some, they are easier to look at), there is a huge potential for abuse here. I have long been annoyed by the Wikipedia lists of alumni of universities, which often have unreferenced red links to people we know nothing about. At least a category only refers to people whose pages have been vetted. This list is also a mess: it is not alphabetized, name order changes throughout, and people are there (like Yamagata Aritomo) who weren't even alive during WWII. Michitaro (talk) 22:22, 23 May 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.