Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortified District


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 15:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fortified District
Unless somebody knows this subject and can edit it I'd recommend deleting. As is, the poor English and insufficient context make it impossible to understand Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it, as it seems to be a somewhat notable term, but I do see many places for improvement. I think a tag is sufficient for this article. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|  ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Fix I think the problem with this article is that "fortified district" is a generic term with no specific reference, it is not a notable term at all. The article is apparently intended to be about Japanese fortified districts during the occupation of China and Korea in World War II.  The article then goes on to provide a list of fortified districts.  I think the starting point here is to change the name of the article to something more specific and descriptive of it's actual content.  Further, each one of those fortified districts mentioned in the article could be a separate article by itself if written by someone with detailed knowledge and maps, which I do not possess.  After that point, the renamed article would exist as a general text article on Japanese Fortified Districts, with links to specific articles for specific fortified districts mentioned in the article.  In the alternative, this article could be renamed Japanese Fortified Districts and a number of articles merged into it, such that each of the named areas is a subsection of this article.  I am not voting for deletion here, as it is a notable subject, but I disagree that it's a notable term.GestaltG 16:18, 1 January 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.