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 fishhead64 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics in Showa Japan

[edit]

First reason: after a year and a half since the last AfD discussion, it still lacks reference or citation. Second, and even worse, it has undergone a sneaky "minor" page "move" by an editor towards a wider naming span, unwarranted and unexplained, which is completely ignoring the previous discussion held in good faith. Previous discussion held in September-October 2005 is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eugenics_measures_in_Japanese_Empire (ps: was not sure which "afd" template because of the name change.) 8de8 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterilize as unsourced. Too many claims + too few sources (actually, no sources at all) = too little reason to keep. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 09:36Z
Delete, unsourced. Could not verify whats stated in the article. --soum (0_o) 09:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, this page needs to be moved back to its former title. Showa Japan includes the 1980s. This article only deals with the pre-occupation government. Dekimasu よ! 10:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Imperial Japan is a lot more vague and wider than Showa Japan it inludes not only the 1980's but all the Empire history, notably since the Meiji restoration. The article refer to the first part of the Showa era. The risk of confusion is certainly less now. --Flying tiger 12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to point out that you were the one who moved the article? You also didn't state any reason for keeping the article. Anyway, "Imperial Japan" means 1889-1945. Showa Japan means 1926-1989. This article doesn't deal with anything after World War II. Dekimasu よ! 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in the history of the article, so there is no mystery... "Anyway" too, this article does not deal with the Meiji and Taisho eras either, so why "Imperial Japan" ? --Flying tiger 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the accuracy of the article, but I'm not going to deal with content disputes here. I think a good solution is to merge to Demographics of Imperial Japan and then rigorously hack at the unsourced statements. Dekimasu よ! 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support. However, I just looked, and that article is also unsourced since 2005 and there is already a section about eugenics policies at the end of the text. (There are so many articles which are unsourced on Wikipedia...) I think deletion is however certainly the last solution. The user who wrote this seems to had precise info. I think more time again should be given to research. I just spot Women and War in Japan 1937-1945 by Thomas Havens which seems to refer to propaganda activities of Katsuko Tojo. Did anyone read this essay in American Historical Review ?--Flying tiger 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source. Hermeneus (user/talk) 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added two external links indicating that the topic is quite notable. I suggest that the article be stubbified. Stammer 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't comment on the renaming issue, but two sources are provided in the External links section. The article just needs inline referencing. Also, some of the wordage in the article sounds POV - but that's not a reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've moved the two sources in the External links into a new References section and have used them for a few inline references. But some statements in the article are not supported by these two sources and there are citation tags on them. Still, not a reason for article deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now, and I think it should survive AfD in some form. I have officially added merge tags to this page and Demographics of Imperial Japan, and that's a topic that can be handled outside of this context. Dekimasu よ! 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting and notable subject. Referencing is sufficient in my opinion.Biophys 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Demographics of Imperial Japan per arguments of others.Biophys 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and additional should be findable. Notable subject and sourceable. DGG 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Uncited statements in a highly sensitive article like this should be removed (with proper discussion, etc), but the article should not. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliability, seems just a personal essay. Poo-T 06:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article may need improvement and sourcing but the topic is encyclopedic. Eugenics is mentioned in Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan and Japanese military-political doctrines in the Showa period --Richard 07:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a malignant venomous article on Japan. For instance, National Eugenic Law is a law that permits the artificial abortion for the maternity protection including economical reasons. --Azukimonaka 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above ed. just sent the same message to me, asking me to change my vote.DGG 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. While Japanese may feel offensed by such article, it has sources. Very notable topic. Moreover, everybody knows that Japanese united with Hitler and shared fascism. Considering their ally, topic of eugenics in Militarist Japan existed in reality, for what then fascism stands for? Vlad fedorov 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please put out the source. "everybody knows that Japanese united with Hitler and shared fascism."　I regret for a wrong article to be supported by this policy. --Azukimonaka 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced.--Watermint 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.