Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrender of Japan

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan
As User:Raul654 suggested. I would love to know what others think. (Please don't take this sarcastically) keepGateman1997 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Naturally I created this article. -- Taku 11:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Victory over Japan Day; i know that's americentric, and i know japan's only surrended once, but it still makes more sense to me to move any non-duplicate content over there. Nateji77 12:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote to keep, article has been greatly expanded. Nateji77 07:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Nateji77. Wouldn't want any redundancy.  --Several Times 13:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The most difficult VfD I've seen so far; I have respect for what Taku is saying here. The rules first: WP cannot have two articles on the same subject under different titles, that's not an option. So a decision has to be made in either choosing one of the current titles, or choosing a third that is agreeable to all concerned. The last option will intuitively sound the fairest; it is also never going to happen. So choose one, we must. Now, an article on this subject need not be intrinsically POV. It can document in the most rigorous terms the different POVs, and this one (the V-J article) does (it goes to great lengths to tell us what the day is called in Japan, etc). If everything in the article is meticulously NPOV, then all that remains a point of contention is the title itself. But we can view the title as merely a marker: a marker for interested readers to find a story on the subject. What ought to be important to us is making sure that our story is fair: the title is merely a link to get to the story. Therefore, choose the title most people are familiar with. On the English Wikipedia, that title is V-J day. Delete.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  14:16:30, 2005-08-11 (UTC) NB. I  should clarify that I mean that the article should be deleted. The page with the title "Surrender of Japan" can redirect to V-J day.— Encephalon  |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  14:59:12, 2005-08-11 (UTC) The page has been rewritten to address the concerns of editors. The rewrite met my objections, and I have changed my vote (see below).— Encephalon  |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  13:56:11, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
 * Keep and do one of the following. (1) If we don't have a well-considered article on the surrender debates in the Japanese government, then this would be a good name for it -- PBS recently did a good job on the subject, so we should be able to do at least a stub.  A disambuguation paragraph can then point to V-J day for anyone who is looking for that topic under this title.  (2) If such an article exists, then this article can become an extended disambiguation page, pointing to V-J day, the surrender debate article, and the relevant sections of the articles on the atomic bombing.  (3) If all of these exist, then this can be a redirect.  There doesn't seem to be much to merge that is not already at V-J Day, but this can be looked into by whomever does the fix-up. Robert A West 14:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, what is the rationale for deletion? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you say that, Chris. There are 9 votes on this page. 3 votes are for keeping the page, (apparently) as it stands. None of the three who voted this way said a word to explain why they think as they do (this is not necessarily a bad thing). 6 others have voted for a change - all 6 believe that the page should not remain as it does. Most think that the page should become a redirect after it's contents are either merged or deleted outright; Robert suggests other things that may be done with the article space. In each case these editors explained why they think what they think. Perhaps reading their comments may answer your question as to their rationale, and explaining your own view would help us understand why you think the page should be kept (apparently as is).— Encephalon  |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  17:20:10, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
 * A number of people seem to have a rationale for merging; I disagree with this merge because V-J Day and the surrender of Japan are two separate things. e.g., descriptions of the annual celebration of the event belong on V-J Day, and descriptions of the surrender process (which of course covered more than one day) on the Surrender page. If the pages were to be merged, this seems to be transparently the better title, as it makes sense everywhere and addresses the entire topic. It remains unclear why this is on votes for deletion and not being discussed as a merge. The nominator provided no basis for deletion, and Raul's comment directs us to the talk page, which this article appears not to have. Again, what's the problem -- unencyclopedic, POV, etc. -- that's prompting the deletion of this article? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or delete. As I said on the talk page, there is no rational basis for having this article. Taku created it because he's currently in an edit war with just about everyone on Operation Downfall. His logic is surreal - Taku claims that because the Japanse Wikipeida doesn't talk about the reasons why Japan surrendered, neither should we. So he took information out of that article and moved it to this one. &rarr;Raul654 16:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for a record, this is not what I am saying. -- Taku 23:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect per Nateji77. Victory over Japan Day covers the topic in greater detail, and this is nearly redundant. &mdash; RJH 16:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP and expand. VJ day article is about the day Japan surrenders. The article "Surrender of Japan" should cover the actual process of surrender, hold-outs, after surrender battles (such as the last battle at sea, being a few days after the surrender, between a US Marines captain and a Japanese Army colonel on Chinese junks), the signing of the surrender between Japan and the various combatants, the fact that Japan and the Soviet Union never made peace, etc... 132.205.3.20 19:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Nateji77 is right.Dottore So 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand, per Robert A West. An article about the Japanese perspective towards surrender would be a good addition. It's something I might have been able to write back in college, but that was far too long ago. --Howcheng 20:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

CHRIS: The editors who vote on the VfD page are charged with a simple task: to determine whether the article in question satisfies criteria for deletion from Wikipedia. The question before us is unambiguous: does the article now lying at Surrender of Japan deserve deletion? The first thing to do is to look at that article. It has four sentences. It states that the Emperor announced Japan's surrender to the Allied forces on Aug 14 1945, that that day is known as Victory day in the US but Shusen-kinenbi in Japan, and that it is generally considered to mark the end of WWII. That's it. There's nothing else there.

Now, the reason this article is before us is clear. There is another article, VJ day, which relates precisely the same events, and which has been around for two years. There is a WP policy that you cannot have two articles on the same thing. Since the content of SOJ was so similar to the corresponding, relevant portion of VJD the question essentially boiled down to: which title page should this article come under? I explained in my first post how I answered that question. My opinion is that the article at SOJ should be removed. Other editors have said that the content of SOJ should be removed and "merged" into VJD — that is fine too, the reason I didn't suggest that myself is that I read both articles, and it seems to me there is essentially nothing in SOJ that is not already in VJD.

Now, you and the anon have suggested that the article be kept, and that a future article detailing the whole surrender process can go to that page. I find nothing objectionable in the least about writing an article under that title that would narrate all those issues that you point out — sounds to me like a splendid idea. But that is not our charge. We are asked to decide what to do with the article sitting very publicly on that page right now. (There is a reason why articles that are VfDed are "frozen" - that is the version we are judging, not something in the past or the future.)

Would I object if the SOJ page was blanked and a new version such as what you speak of was put up? No, of course not. I'd want to see a good article like that up sometime. However, I cannot be asked to respond affirmatively to, "Well, why don't you keep this article that violates policy, because in five months we'll have a different article here." This is similar to "In five months I'll be bigger than the Stones, dude, so keep the currently non-notable article on my garage band." — Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  22:55:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


 * The fact is, however, that V-J Day and Surrender of Japan are about as much the "same topic" as Easter and the Resurrection of Jesus. As well, you are welcome to merge V-J Day into the broader topic, Surrender of Japan, and if you want move that whole thing into Pacific War. I wouldn't oppose these merges so long as no information was lost. However, merging broader topics to more specific ones is a mistake. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:16, 2005 August 12 (UTC)


 * Chris, this is really taking up quite a bit of time, isn't it? I'm afraid I can't explain my position any better than I already have. While I am unable to understand why it is that you respond as if you haven't read what I wrote (and this has happened twice), and am moderately amused that you're telling me stuff about SOJ that I already know and have agreed with, I'm perfectly happy to leave this as it is. This is a VfD, and outcomes are best when editors who understand policy evaluate each matter disinterestedly. We've all said our piece: great. May the closer decide what's best. I'd urge anyone voting here to 1. Read both the SOJ and VJD articles, 2. Read the posts here 3. If they haven't lately, read WP:DEL, and 4. Vote! All best wishes— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  06:19:58, 2005-08-12 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. The article and Victory over Japan Day are about different topics. One is about a day; the other is about an ongoing process. The article can take into account lots of events that led to the surrender of Japan, such as the outcome of the Battle of Okinawa; the Potsdam Declaration; Russian preparations for invasion of Manchuria; continued bombing of Japan; internal conditions such as evacuation, mobilization, food supply; internal political discord ... there is enormous potential for gathering in one place the factors that led to Japan's surrender. None of this belongs in Victory over Japan Day. This situation has important differences from the analogy to a band (as Encephalon asserted): the article does not violate policy; the event is already proven noteworthy and encyclopedic; the possibility of growth is in the article rather than the subject. Fg2 00:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do we keep besides the article namespace?


 * "On August 14, 1945, at gozenkaigi (meeting by the Emperor and the leaders), the acceptance of Potsdam Declaration was decided."


 * and


 * "The day is known as Victory over Japan Day in the U.S."


 * make it pretty unambiguous that the article we have now is referring to the day, if not the hour, japan agreed to accept surrender. we can keep and list it as a page needing expansion, but the natural direction to expand in is likely to just result in more content redundant with what's at V-J Day. if expansion is desirable, then i think we need more variegated content than we have now, or at least a very clear request for such on its talk page. Nateji77 04:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * make it pretty unambiguous that the article we have now is referring to the day, if not the hour, japan agreed to accept surrender. Exactly. I am unable to understand why the concept that VfDs evaluate the existing article at the page namespace and nothing else appears to be difficult to grasp.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;
 * It's easy to grasp. Is that concept policy? Fg2 07:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Final Comment. From reading some of the above, it doesn't look like it has been grasped. I think the basic facts here can be summarized as follows:
 * There have been 13 votes. Of these, 2 votes are for simply "keeping" the article (ie. keeping the article as is). The other 11 voters want some sort of change to the status quo. The disagreement appears to be with what form the change should be. 6 voters want the content of the article at the SOJ page removed and merged into the VJ article, should there be anything to merge. The other 5 voters want the article to be kept as is for now; they say that in future it could make a great page for a number of hypothesized possibilities.
 * I have explained why I disagree with that view. The SOJ article is not a marvelous treatise on the series of events surrounding the end of the War. It is a 4 sentence paragraph repeating, almost verbatim, stuff from the 2 year old VJ page. Wiki policy on this is clear - merge (if there is anything to merge), and redirect the page. Since this is a wiki, there is no harm done to any party with this action: if an industrious editor writes an outstanding article on SOJ in the future, he can always put it up, and he'll have my full support, for sure. But do understand that I will not change my vote to allow a clear policy violation to get through because of a hypothesized future alternative. My best wishes to you Fg2.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  12:21:37, 2005-08-12 (UTC)


 * Comment (since, I recently discovered, I still have too few edits to be acceptable to the Cabal to be accounted a responsible voter) :: IMHO 'V-J Day' is an extremely POV title, and panders to the triumphalist Brit-o-centric mentality which I thought was supposed to be being eradicated. On the other hand, an article on why one country decided to end a war by surrender, rather than continue to a futile defeat, seems an eminently valuable piece of original exegesis. --Simon Cursitor 11:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep While the page is currently mininmal, there is a great room for expansion. There is no mention of the surrender aboard the USS Missouri to MacArthur, who signed it, who was there, where is the surrender sword now, etc. There is no need to merge with VJ day either. While the two pages currently look similar, VJ day deals with the celebrations around much of the globe. Barneygumble 20:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There is plenty of room for expansion, and this is a perfectly different concept from VJ Day. The comparison of Easter vs the Resurrection of Jesus is a particularly compelling one. Themindset 21:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it in a direction that clearly distinguishes it from the V-J Day article. Fg2 11:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Fg2. I believe most editors vote out of a concern for policy, and desire to see WP filled with as many good, strong articles and as few poorly written, sorry excuses. Our differences arise mainly with what to do in the interval; whether we're willing to tolerate a poor article/policy violation remaining on WP in hopes it will eventually improve, or not. Editors who vote to "include" have valid reasons for choosing as they do; I think the most valuable among them are those who actually put their keyboards where their mouths are and work to improve the page. As it now stands, the SOJ article is a decent precis of some of the main events surrounding the Surrender, is clearly distinct from VJday (ie. it is not a redundant page), and has good scope for expansion. Editors on VfD judge what is on the page — with Fg2's excellent rewrite, I see no reason for this page to be "kept-but-merged/blanked/made-to-redirect," and remove my earlier vote for such. I now vote simply to keep (and hope the involved editors can find a way to settle their differences and expand). To Fg2, keep up the good work.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  13:50:10, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. V-Day is about a specific day. Surrender of Japan covers a longer time period, it should have details on which events led up to the surrender, which I think is much more encyclopedic and interesting content than the fact that this day is actually still called victory-day in the US (enough criticism on this mentality was already posted here), and that it is still celebrated. If one of the two article seems redundant, by all means keep "surrender" and delete V-Day. --Fenice 12:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC) A no-merge vote is a good choice now. Prior to 30 minutes before you wrote this, it wasn't.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;


 * Comment Incidentally, it perhaps bears mention that there was no reason for any editor who wanted this page to be kept to fear deletion — no one here (with the possible exception of one editor) voted for the page to be deleted. People were voting to merge-redirect, keep-expand, keep-as is —all of which imply keep. (The closer of this VfD has the simplest of tasks ahead of him/her.) The debate we're having here is essentially one that could (should?) have taken place on the Talk page of the article, because all the actions involved may be performed by any one of us. VfDs like this one are symptomatic: it's actually being used as a dispute-resolution process. I am not sure why the person who brought this VfD did so, since when I checked the history, it looks like the person who brought it himself does not believe the page should be deleted. I do not know his motivations, I do hope it was not WP:POINT, but I'm happy that the issue looks like it's moving towards resolution. Regards— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  13:56:11, 2005-08-13 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd been working on an article, and have posted it. &mdash;wwoods 20:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC) LOL. Excellent. By the time this VfD is over, SOJ is going to be a featured article.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  20:24:00, 2005-08-13 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. I agree that the circumstances surrounding the surrender of Japan in World War II should be better explored; a good aspect would be the attempted coup by members of the Japanese military prior to Emperor Hirohito's broadcast (I think I'm gonna work on that as well :)). The article on V-J Day is just a commemoration of the actual day of surrender. This promises to be a good "killer" article, although a better, more precise title may be in order.RashBold 21:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article has obviously been substantially expanded since the start of this voting process.  It looks to me now to be a robust piece of work worthy of keeping in it's own right, particularly given the current topicality re the Hiroshima / Nagasaski bombings and the renewal of historical debate regarding the reasons for the Japanese surrender - i.e atomic bombings / role of USSR etc.  The comaprison to the VJ Day article, and calls to merge with that seem, to me, to be patently wrong.  -- Cactus.man | Reply 11:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons delineated above. Bhumiya/Talk 12:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. The process of the surrender of the Japanese Imperial Army has nothing to do with V-J Day, it just happened on V-J Day. The process of surrender had begun some time before. --Luckybeargod 16:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.--Kross 21:10, August 15, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.