Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan

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. There is consensus that this is a valid, notable topic. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan

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

WP:SYN. not a unique topic for its own article. 68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Completing nomination of behalf of IP editor--above text was copied from article talk page. I'm neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 02:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per invalid reasoning. The topic is unique (it's about "agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan", three often-related topics). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on a single work by the Library of Congress. No other independent works address these 3 sectors of the economy as if they are unique as one entity.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The combination itself could be justified given that the government ministry that supervises these three it itself called the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. It is not an unjustified synthesis. Michitaro (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any other sources which would indicate that this article is not only based on just the 3-4 pages of the section in the open source book?68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your question is answered by Michataro's post: the ministry in Japan over these is called the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Therefore, there are at least two sources which use that grouping and ordering in the title. And they are strong sources, too: both governmental agency sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That could simply be a coincidence. The Japanese government could simply have grouped these industries together to increase efficiencies in their portfolio.
    - Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Japan) is not a the sort of independent scholarship we expect to base wiki articles on.68.148.186.93 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, no. You're just grasping at straws here to try to find a valid reason to delete the article. So far, you have not made a valid claim. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not considered reliable. You have one ~400 page book which doesn't treat this topic as unique. And no other sources have been produced to do so. WP:N: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."68.148.186.93 (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is using a wiki as a reference? No one. As for the 400 page book, what are you talking about? Stop dancing around, trying to make an issue where none exists. If two governments refer to the ministry as that, it is not a stretch at all to have an article covering the topic. We don't need more than two sources (though more are always welcome). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps or merge somehow as this is certainly not seriously needed for deletion but could still be used somehow and somewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 6 May 2016 (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.