Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2) (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 no consensus. Conscious 14:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2) (2nd Nomination); List of Japanese Navy officers (WWII)

 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)

The List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2) was previously nominated for AfD in August 2006. It survived by virtue of there being no consensus, thus defaulting to keep. In the four months since, absolutely no attempt has been made to verify any of the information on the list or to provide any sources. Without verification or reliable sources, this compilation is essentially original research. I have since discovered the companion article, List of Japanese Navy officers (WWII), which suffers the same fatal flaws as the army “article”. Both articles fail all three essential content policies of wikipedia. I could also add that wikipedia is not a directory or memorial. These are indeterminate lists that do what a Category:Japanese Army Officers or Category:Japanese Naval Officers ought to be doing. Agent 86 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lists and categories are separate animals and can work in tandem. That said, I see no need for listing all officers below the rank of General or Admiral respectively. Below that, it should only be notable officers with blue links or reasonable red links. This seems more like a tag/cleanup issue than one for AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and cleanup &mdash; Agree with Dhartung, although Captains would also be acceptible. Many of these entries may never have an article, so better a list than a category. That being said, however, it'd be good to have more information than a simple list on this page. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If this were a matter of cleanup, I'd have tagged it with cleanup. However, these articles are contrary to the main content policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. As those have not been addressed over the lifespan of these articles, and as it does not appear that it will be addressed, these articles cannot remain. Agent 86 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete we've been through this before. Not only an unmaintainble list, but also vague listcruft of the worst sort. Where do you set the bar for inclusion? And by whose standard? Eusebeus 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As there is no "bar" for inclusion, this would be a totally unmanagable, and probably unverifable list. Make it a category - not a list.  SkierRMH 04:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Huwe 6 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and let it get cleaned up. There is no deadline. Fg2 07:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Making it a category and not a list does nothing to address verifiability, except spread the problem out.  Categories and lists co-exist peacefully in most cases, and I don't know what makes these two lists particularly unmaintainable.  The bar for inclusion is probably set too low for these two lists, but AFD is not for cleanup. Neier 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating cleanup. I am advocating deletion based on the paramount policies of WP:V and WP:OR, among other things. I am also not advocating moving all the listed names into categories; the suggestion is merely that the very few verifiable people on this list can be categorized as such. Unless and until the content policy issues are addressed, these articles simply cannot exist. Agent 86 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And, I am not arguing against cleanup either. I'm arguing against deletion.  I don't see how WP:OR applies to this list at all.  From that page, original research is any of the following:
 * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * It introduces original ideas;
 * It defines new terms;
 * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
 * As for verifiability, history books are awash with the names of generals, etc. Yasukuni Shrine probably has a list by rank of every soldier who fought for Japan.  If there is a questionable name on the list, then tag it with  ; there's no need to delete the entire list.  The higher the inclusion bar is set, the more sources are likely to be found.  That's why I agree with a couple of others above who recommend deleting names from the lower echelons of the lists. Neier 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V requires those wishing to keep the article to provide the verification (please refer to "Burden of evidence" in that policy). The article provides no verification or reliable source. As for tagging with cite, it was simply more efficient to tag the whole article with verify, a template that has been there since August 15. In fact, the better alternative is to delete every unverified name from the list (again, see "Burden of evidence"). As for WP:OR, as far as I can see from the lists, they appear to be unpublished data or a sythesis of information from unverified, uncited sources. Agent 86 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The list was created just for the sake of having such a list, the list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the content is unverifiable, the list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, the list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category, and the list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. This statement concerns me: "Yasukuni Shrine probably has a list by rank of every soldier who fought for Japan."  It seems very much like an advocation for a data dump. This type of thing would be great for Wikisource or Wikibooks, but not for Wikipedia.  To quote the founder "An encyclopedia is not a data dump. It serves to give readers a quick essential summary of what they want and need to know. In order to do this effectively, we must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC) link"  While the original argument was about notability, I believe his argument applies to this case as well. Certainly creating an article or mentioning the name EVERY Japanese military officer from WWII is counter to Wikipedia's notability goals. --Kunzite 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think WP:OR or WP:V apply, but this list is about as discriminate as List of bakers in Osaka. ~ trialsanderrors 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Neier. --- RockMFR 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per trialsanderrors and WP:NOT. These lists are borad and indiscriminate.  Eluchil404 07:50, 28 December 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.