Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-O Data
I do apologize to others for the burden caused by providing so many sources. I just felt that some on this AfD were not looking properly at the sources I provided, so I erred on the side of volume (though not on quality). The problem, as I stated above, is that the Japanese media is protective of its content, and thus the major companies put their older material behind paywalls. That is what happened to the Chunichi article (they even prevent the Wayback Machine from archiving them--I just checked for that one). So the majority--and in many cases the best (because you have to pay for the best)--coverage is either in print or in for-pay databases. So what to do? In previous AfDs where I have cited off-line sources, most participants have taken it in |good faith that I am not making them all up and have used them as indication that RS exist (I don't recall an AfD where the article was subsequently deleted in such a case). We are, after all, not determining whether the article should be promoted to feature article status, but rather seeing if the weight of coverage tends towards . I sense that some here are not willing to assume good faith, so those participants may want to see the articles. I did provide the relevant bibliographic information for those who can use the databases or go to a library (which is what I did). The databases of all the newspapers I cited can be searched at any library in Japan and at many major research and even public institutions abroad. If there is a problem with not knowing Japanese, I suggest one solution: that someone neutral to this AfD or who has not yet participated make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for some members to check on the Japanese sources I have given to determine if they help satisfy , and/or to make additional searches to determine if those also help satisfy . I cannot guarantee a quick response (WPJ members are few in number and overburdened as it is), but this seems a reasonable option
— User:Michitaro, 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:FAITH||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)