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. Consensus is this article needs improvement, not deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese values[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

91% plagiarism from Library of Congress ~~COPYVIO with this URL: [1]~~. Seems to have been that way for years as noted on the talk page. Netherzone (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The website with the 91% copyvio is souced from the "U.S. Library of Congress", which this article claims to using public domain material from. It may be possible that the url in question is copying from the public domain material, though I can't prove that. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvios should be CSD'd not AfD'd. As for this article, the actual source seems to be the Library of Congress. The copyright notice is here. From what I can see, this work is not subject to copyright. So this might be plagiarism, but it wouldn't be a copyvio in that case. You can list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for closer examination. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me aware of that ((u|ProcrastinatingReader]], I have modified my entry above to reflect that. Netherzone (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that Japanese values have changed somewhat since Ruth Benedict did a commendable but understandably flawed job of inferring and describing them circa 1944. And it's her book that much of this curious article currently claims to be based on. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over I think this needs some WP:TNT because it’s a horrible-quality article about a fairly important topic. Dronebogus (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Even if this article isn't plagiarism, it should still be completely rewritten. Words can't describe how vague it is. It shouldn't get deleted because it is definitely a notable topic that needs to be part of Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpions13256, you make the article sound worthless, yet you want to keep it (strongly, even). I don't understand. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it should not be deleted but completely rewritten. I'm just saying that deleting it altogether seems like an extreme measure. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the biggest fan of WP:TNT, but this one is not terrible. Are there no experts in Japanese culture active here? Bearian (talk)
A clear case of Blowing it up and starting over. Even some Keep !votes are essentially suggesting the same thing. -The Gnome (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2020 (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.