Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy


 * 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. Walton Assistance! 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese cultural artifacts controversy

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I came to this page as part of the work I have started working on old articles requiring cleanup. This one had been tagged since September of 2005. I'm enjoying this work, which I've only recently taken on, and feel that I can improve articles even if they don't interest me. But this article is beyond my ability to help.

Yes, it needs clean up. But that's impossible to do, because—
 * the information lacks any context whatsoever. The only Wikilinks are to non-specific articles, such as articles on countries or individuals.  There's nowhere to go to find out the context in which this issue is framed.
 * the information lacks any citations. This is a problem for a couple of reasons.  First of all, of course, we want to be able to verify information in any article, but also, because such citations might give a "cleaner-uppper" like myself the chance to figure out the fundamentals of this issue.  Without any cites, we can go nowhere with this article
 * the article gives the impression of being very POV—in particular, very anti-Japanese. Now I'm no Nippophile, but I still expect if you're going to demonize someone or a country that you better bring your facts to the table.  And you can't clean up POV.  To quote a line that I saw in a movie once, "You can't polish a turd."  And that's what a POV-laden article is.

There is, by the way, one citation given on the page. But it's to some very unprofessional looking site called MUSEUM SECURITY MAILING LIST (caps not added by me). I just think that this article is beyond hope, and I urge its deletion. Unschool 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It's the first time I've ever asked for an article to be deleted.  Still learning. Unschool 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See, this, this, this, this, and this. Do those help you to work out what the subject of the article is? Uncle G 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to look at that stuff probably until this coming weekend, but I appreciate the help. Unschool 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The main problem in the earlier AfD seems to have been the original name, and this is clearly better. Those articles are relevant, and since they're there that demonstrates sourceability. I'm sure there are additional non-English language sources as well. DGG 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I greatly appreciate Unschool's dedication to this issue. I just don't think the article is unsalvgable, or that it strays from the facts, granted that citations are badly needed. Herostratus 14:17, 22 May 2007 (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.