Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces 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 rename to U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and keep. I think this satisfies some of the merge votes as well. Mango juice talk 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

===Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan=== Page is only the title followed by "is a 1960 law". Page is in SERIOUS need of wikifying, or deletion. Wildthing61476 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if the page is expanded. This an important agreement that has caused some political problems over the years. Nuttah68 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but page must be expanded. Scorpiondollprincess 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as bad joke. Yeah, maybe this is an important agreement, but this bad joke is not that article.  Tychocat 17:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete  (vote change below), if there were any content I'd suggest a merge into Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, but that article already has more info on Article VI than this page ever has. -- H·G (words/works) 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as contextless nonsense. Simply stating the name of an agreement under a treaty and the year it was agreed upon in no way constitutes an encyclopedia article.  If this is an important agreement that has caused problems per Nuttah68, then someone needs to add verifiable information to the article.  Without that evidence, there is no basis or reason for this article.  If kept it needs to be renamed to something a bit more economical... noone will ever search for "Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan".--Isotope23 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Isotope23, and second the call that if kept, it be renamed. - Tapir Terrific 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- TheFarix (Talk) 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speady Delete per CSD A1 and CSD G1. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Speedy delete per WP:CSD - no context. This also has the worst title I've ever seen here (which probably means I haven't been here long enough). It doesn't help that this is the article creator's first set of edits. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Give the creator a break and the article a chance to be expanded. The article was listed for speedy deletion within one minute after creation, while it was clearly marked as a stub: This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it, and having an interwiki link to a longer article on the Japanese Wikipedia. The creator also got a "Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed" message. So much for not biting the newbies and assuming good faith. --Lambiam Talk 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just added a little more content. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement. The subject appears worthy and verifiable; the current title is a problem.  Smerdis of Tlön 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the sources seems to call it the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, if this is correct could the article be moved? - Wickning1 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh double post - Wickning1 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is verifiable but the article really needs a rename. 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * BJAODN this name and recreate under proper name per Wickning1. Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename please god. Rename. 205.157.110.11 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement - let's give it some time to grow. I also suggest that the new user be contacted if this happens so that the result can be explained. Z iggurat 23:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why rename the official name? --222.3.78.211 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's far far too long. Encyclopedia articles have to be under the more common name, and the SOFA term is the one that is used to describe this . Z iggurat 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Isotope23. ---Charles 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Discount votes comments (excuse me) for deletion prior to article expansion and rename to something SANE Or merge to the main article. Verifiable and important hot-button topic.  --Kunzite 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent re-write; I'm confident that the suggestion to rename will stand, so there's no need to start insisting on discounting 'votes'. Z iggurat 04:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I corrected my AfD is not VdD gaff. I still feel a need to request it. --Kunzite 04:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm sure that the closing admin will take it into account! Z iggurat 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, no reason to discount any prior opinions, particularly in light of H·G's comments below. Even after the rewrite I reiterate my deletion opinion.--Isotope23 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep after expansion. Rename to something like U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement per Ziggurat. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep expanded article but rename per above. BryanG(talk) 05:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question - we already have a page on Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, of which this particular topic is one Article. Why should this Article be the focus of a separate WP page? Wouldn't it serve better, at most, as a section of the larger page? I suggested "delete" instead of "merge" earlier because there wasn't anything there that wasn't already on the other page. The addition of text and links to this one has changed that, but at best I still can't see this being worth any more than a merge. -- H·G (words/works) 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per H·G (words/works). Yeah, we assume good faith and don't bite newbies, but looking at the pretentiously long title, paired with the first-version punch-line-brief text, and I'd certainly vote to delete again.  The stub I'm looking at now is where this should have started, not needing an afd to prompt the upgrade.  Tychocat 09:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with some other relevant page and get rid of the unwieldy title. Xuanwu 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan --TheFarix (Talk) 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename. The content of the page is a little bit more now, althought it is in major need or cleanup (really hard to read) and a definite renaming!  -zappa.jak e  (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per my earlier comments, combined with the rewrite. This is better information, but I still think the parent article on the Treaty should just include this as a subsection. A rename wouldn't even be necessary, since there's a perfectly good article where this info can go. -- H·G (words/works) 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per earlier, plus Question as a Wikipedian who's not exactly new but who only recently has become a relatively active editor. Would it be inappropriate for an editor to simply go ahead and perform the merge at this point, rather than wait for the result of the AfD? VoiceOfReason 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep No wait I mean Merge - The title in English, Japanese and transliterated Japanese is almost as long as the article itself. Needs hella expansion. Superbo 14:51, 26 July 2006 (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.