Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980s 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1980s in Japan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

User:Bearian suggested WP:AfD. The creator's talk page shows a lot of related activity. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment On what basis should it be deleted? The editor shows a lot of strange activity with many articles created and dozens of photos uploaded.  Someone might discuss what Wikipedia is and what it is not with the editor. But I don't understand why you believe this particular article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Fg2 (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is no evidence the article doesn't meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep On the wrestling part of the article I would strongly suggest more be written on it as it seems to be describing more of Professional wrestling in North America than it does in Japan. Afkatk (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anglophone bias appears to be at work here. The U.K. gets an article for each individual year of the 20th century; and the U.S. gets the same.  But when an editor proposes that Japan gets merely one article per decade and starts writing, you think that it should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you've got the wrong end of the stick; I don't think Bearian has an anglophone bias (not in the sense you're describing), and I know I don't. I deliberately tried to keep my tone in the nomination neutral to see what direction people wanted to go with this, because there are a couple of general questions to work out here, and I didn't want to bias the result. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 13:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, I have been a member of WP Japan for over 2 years, and have created or edited several articles for that project. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote nothing about Bearian wanting it deleted. I clearly wrote that you think that it should be deleted.  Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. There should be opportunity for a long good article here. DGG (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because the topic is good does not mean that we should have something unencyclopedic in the space reserved, and this would need a serious rewrite to live up to the topic. While I agree that there should be an article that would be a reference for the history of Japan during the years from 1980 to 1989, it should be encyclopedic, and this article is not.  If an article about "United States in the 1980s" was little more than a discussion of big hair, Flashdance, Pac Man, Rambo, and leg warmers, then I wouldn't support keeping that either.  Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This sounds like something that should be remanded to WikiProject Japan for them to discuss how they want to handle dividing up history write-ups -- for all I know, they may want to slice it by imperial eras or duodecimal zodiac cycles instead of gregorian decades. Once they come to a consensus, they probably can handle the requisite moves/renames/merges/splits administratively. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried riding one of those Japanese duodecimal zodiac cycles and I had trouble shifting gears. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Chinese cycles are reportedly easier to ride -- which makes sense as they invented the thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to nominator for agreeing to this. Keep - especially if WP Japan could create  a series of articles summarizing Japanese culture and history by decade. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd be even happier if the other decadal articles promised in the associated infobox were created, but the sources provided here justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now that the outcome is clear, I can give my rationale for bringing this to AfD without biasing the outcome. Have a look at creator's talk page.  There are 250 sections, and except for the welcome, all but 4 of them concern a rejected contribution of some kind (and some concern multiple problems), and since most people don't leave a talk page comment when they're undoing an edit, there's no telling how many rejected contributions that actually represents.  Some admins suggested that there should be some kind of discussion, and the reaction here is part of that discussion; what I'm seeing here, clearly, is that you don't want to deal with cases like this by rejecting individual articles if there's a chance of saving them, regardless of the history of the contributor, and that's helpful information. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If 1980s in Japan is kept, it should be completely rewritten. I agree that a structure like the one in the 1980s in Hong Kong article is a useful framework, but the introduction to that article is similar to the opinion I removed from 1980s in Japan, and has the same journalistic (not encyclopedic) style of writing, as well as oddball emphasis on some supposed international perception of politics. If the author of the article sticks to facts, selects them carefully and provides sources, there won't be serious discussion about deleting them. But presently, 1980s in Japan has an opening sentence that purports to discuss the economy, but after dismissing automobiles continues with what were then minor blips (in comparison to automobiles, finance, and audio-video equipment) like Famicom and anime. Then there's a whole paragraph (one of three in the main text) on gaming equipment, one on the economy (I think, although it also mentions the death of the Emperor), and one on pro wrestling. We learn that salarymen were purchasing golf equipment in the hopes of achieving material wealth, and that the Japanese forced the U.S. car manufacturers out of business in the 1980s. (That's not how I remember it.) I don't mind if the article is kept, as long as its contents are substantially deleted. A new article with the structure of the Hong Kong article could be a fine model for a series on decades. Fg2 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and delete if no such attempt is being made. The article assembles facts and supports them with sources that can be considered reliable. However, it is basically a collection of trivia that do not provide the reader with a balanced perspective of the social, political and economic development of Japan in the 1980s. The article should primarily use sources that treat Japan's post-war history as a whole, more facts from other sources can be added after a general framework for the article has been established. Cs32en  13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * if you want to improve it, just go ahead. There's no need to wait for others to make the attempt. DGG (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no such need. Personally, I would rewrite the article from scratch. Maybe other editors see a way to improve the article substantially by expanding the current structure. I think it would not be civil to erase most or all of the article just because there is no formal rule that prohibits this. I think it would be the best way if this discussion signals to all current and possible future editors that the article needs to be reworked substantially, and give some time to do this, maybe three months. Regards. Cs32en  13:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to completely rewrite the article. There is some discussion on the WT:JAPAN page about this, too, with some ideas for improvement to the article (in structure and content). Improvement is always welcome, even if it's tossing what's there and starting from scratch. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.