Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese settlers in New Guinea during 1919-1940 times


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese settlers in New Guinea during 1919-1940 times
First should be deleted as OR, and second as an article about a small group of people, each individually non-notable, most of whom have 0 Ghits. Dekimasu 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an OR essay which is extremely hard to understand. I am not convinced that the topic itself is completely non-notable. JPD (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- JPD (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Weak delete - the version as currently presented isn't that bad and someone who knows more than I do (read "who knows anything at all") about the topic might well be able to brush it up and give it sources. That said, it may well be a wild goose chase. BigHaz 10:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as mostly incoherent OR essay.--cj | talk 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, if POV and OR qualms could be addressed. --TheM62Manchester 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's doubtful that the OR problems can be addressed by other sources when the people involved have 0 Google hits. As an aside, I find this a somewhat interesting topic... but I also find it to be so esoteric as to be cruft. To fix the article, I think someone would also have to explain the notability of the topic in the lead. Dekimasu 10:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just an idea, but it might ultimately be that this particular group of settlers aren't notable, while a broader group (1900-1940?) are. BigHaz 11:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR ST47 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title made it sound like an interesting article between the poor writing, the Original Research and the lack of notability, I can't see a reason to keep it.  --Roisterer 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It isn't surprising that this has little presence on Google given the period we are talking about and that Papua New Guinea isn't a first world country. However, it lacks any other sources and fails to establish importance of the topic as it seems to be referring to a small group of people. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and ruthlessly edit. Rich Farmbrough 09:20 27 August 2006 (GMT).


 * 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.