Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese cultural artifacts controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have reviewed this article as a member of the WikiProject Visual Arts because of its long-standing NPOV issue. Despite reasonable efforts, no reliable sources for the claims proposed here could be found. Either the issue is not reflected in reliable sources, or the topic is in fact non-notable. Since the AfD discussion two years ago there would have been ample time to fix the article. As it stands (1) the article relies on a single Web-source that does not satisfy WP:RS, (2) it therefore contains unverified claims, (3) the community of Wikipedia editors has not been able to fix the article's problems, which have existed since its creation in 2005. The article violates WP policy and should be deleted. Enki H. (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC) delete attack piece Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Enki H. (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- Enki H. (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- Enki H. (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- Enki H. (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  -- Enki H. (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is clearly notable although there may be POV issues. I added a couple of external links to reliable sources (Time, NewsWeek) that verify at least the basic concept of a controversy over art looted by Japan in Korea for one.  There's a whole category including similar topics, such as Looted art and Nazi plunder.  An alternative would be to merge with Looted art where there are sections on countries who looted although some of those might might deserve their own articles instead.  Perhaps a pruning down to verifiable facts and merging with that article would result in less POV. Drawn Some (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no question that there are incidents of looted art and of restitution claims. Claiming that there actually exists a notable "Japanese cultural artifacts controversy" is another matter. To support an entire article on that assumption would need broader sources. I have not seen such sources forthcoming since 2005. Adding the new material you found to Looted art is an excellent idea - however very little, if anything, of the material currently in the article is sourced. Enki H. (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I originally created the article but have no objection to its deletion. A much more important issue is that of historical revisionism claims: Koreans and some others say that Japanese schoolbooks omit important episodes such as the Rape of Nanking (Japanese killing Chinese) and Comfort women (Japanese enslaving women for forced prostitution). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whatever else is done with this, there are a lot of long-uncited opinions (people say, some think, or such things in quotes without citation) that need to be removed, including the first sentence. Dekimasu よ! 04:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Possible Keep The topic seems to be real and important enough. It needs better sources if it is to stand as an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep since info in article is now well cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely notable topic, but the article needs lots of work. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated this article for deletion over two years ago; I think it may have been the first article I brought to AfD. It survived, obviously, with the lesson to me being that nearly anything is salvagable, if only a bit of work is put into it.  Well, as far as I can see, that didn't happen.  In two years the article got about six edits and nothing substantial changed.  Still, I've learned a lot and I today I actually believe that this article should not be deleted.  On the other hand, neither can it be allowed to exist as the nippophobic piece of claptrap that it has remained.  So I have taken a chainsaw to it, and I believe that the current version should pass muster.  It's NPOV, it's documented, and yes, I'm afraid, it's both brief and boring.  So be it; at least now someone might build a quality article from this base instead of being scared away by the propaganda page it was before.   Un  sch  ool  03:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - Unschool has fixed the issues the article was tagged for, and while the issue has gotten far less attention than e.g. the German restitution controversies, the significant coverage in TIME and Newsweek articles demonstrate notability. It may still be that the topic could be better discussed in a more comprehensive context of occupation and reconciliation, but that is a different discussion. In its present state, the article can remain. Thank you. Enki H. (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously a real and verifiable topic, but one that is going to be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, within a Wiki-type project, to maintain NPOV. The best an article like this will ever be, I think, is a series of statements, one from one national POV, followed by a contradicting one from the other. I question the uniqueness of the situation-- Are there unique articles on Greek or Egyptian antiquities stolen by England, France, etc., or any number of countless such thefts throughout human history? I also question the title of the article, but have no better suggestion... That said, as far as sourcing, I think we're overlooking the obvious: This is a hot topic in Korea, and I am sure there are many significant articles or books covering the matter in Korean. I'm also quite sure many of them have an obvious bias. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were also many articles and a few books on the subject in Japanese. Again, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had an obvious bias. So I vote "Keep", I guess, but am resigned that the best this sort of article will ever be is a squatting-ground for POV-warriors who create "consensus" just by building up the numbers on their side of the issue... Dekkappai (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I too would favor moving this to a different title.  Any suggestions?   Un  sch  ool  18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. All good and valuable suggestions, I propose to take that discussion to the talk page however, and possibly initiate a merge proposal. I too agree that what the article needs most is context that encourages NPOV coverage. Cheers --Enki H. (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea; I should have thought of that. Accordingly, I have taken that suggestion and initiated a section on the article's talk page. (Presuming that that discussion moves at a pace similar to the article's evolution, we should achieve consensus on a new title by late 2012.)  Un  sch  ool
 * 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.