Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical revisionism (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (Japan)
This stub adds nothing meaningful to a subject already discussed in depth as Japanese history textbook controversies and Japanese war crimes. Furthermore, historical revisionism probably should be avoided in subject titles because the term has different technical and popular meanings. See Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (political). Academic historical revision does not necessarily serve a political agenda. For example, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem is not an attempt at apologetics but a fresh interpretation asserting that some Nazi leaders were banal careerists rather than virulent racists. A title that lumps legitimate scholarly research under the same heading as apologetics is unworkable. The title is inappropriate and the content is redundant. Durova 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It can be managed to be merged with articles mentioned above, but there is no need to delete it before the mergence is completed. Qrfqr 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no content worthy of merging. Every legitimate statement is already expressed in the main articles.  The rest is just the author's confusion over the meaning of historical revisionism. Durova 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not the place to bring merge requests. Charles Matthews 20:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you mistake a response for the nomination? This is not a merge request. Durova 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Durova. --Quasipalm 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No content worth keeping that we don't already have, and the title isn't useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 21 December 2005 (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.