Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenics measures in Japanese Empire

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics measures in Japanese Empire

This might be the most horribly garbled article I've ever seen. The topic is certainly notable, and an appropriate article about eugenics in the Japanese empire (or in Japan in general) should be created, but this article offers little that would be of use Paul 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Machine translation? Easier to start over. Dlyons493 Talk 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If totally rewritten, it should be moved to eugenics in imperial Japan. Neutrality^talk 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Jwissick^(t)(c) 00:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Maybe I'm being too anti-deletionist, but the topic seems worthwhile (probably renamed per Neutrality's suggestion) in principle. It's horribly written now, I agree, but a good article could exist. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dlyons493. DirectorStratton 02:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not machine translation. That's a lazy comment. Charles Matthews
    • Comment The original version of the article, to which I was referring, looks like machine translation to me.Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would a machine ever write reffer? This is posted by a native speaker of Spanish, with idiosyncratic English. Charles Matthews
• Keep and of course, send to Cleanup. I've seen worse. Unfocused 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject is noteworthy but this particular article is not. The whole thing needs to be deleted and started again from scratch. Don’t just say keep and clean up. Either clean it up right now or delete it. I often wonder how many people who always vote to keep and clean up have actually made a concerted effort to clean up a mess like this. It makes the Wikipedia look terrible. ♠ DanMS 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am changing my vote above after some great editing and cleanup by 209.90.145.149 and Charles Matthews. Thank you. ♠ DanMS 00:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I cleaned it up, but I think there may still be questions as to the factual accuracy of the article. 209.90.145.149 04:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. it looks a little better now, still needs more cleanup. Article addresses a worthwhile topic about Japan's history which I'm sure will get more attention in the future by other editors. Kewp 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but agreed that it still needs cleanup, verification, etc. Crypticfirefly 06:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've removed the self-reference to the article in the first line and created a definition lead. Not the best of articles, but keepable in its current state. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One person's opinion on how garbled an article is ... well, this is quite possible to clean up. I often wonder how many people who always vote to keep and clean up have actually made a concerted effort to clean up a mess like this. Well, I have made User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan to address just this. Don't use AfD for clean-up. Charles Matthews 09:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Well done on cleaning it up. You should appreciate that many of us have no expertise in this area. So an Afd seems appropriate to me for the original state of the article - either somebody knows and cares, or they don't and if nobody does then delete is a good course of action. Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on comment: The policy page tells me things like 'use extreme caution merging any material', which I really don't like (merging is key to some clean-ups); and anyone can see this article should be moved to a grammatical title. So I don't accept that gun-to-the-head is a good way to expedite clean-up. Charles Matthews

Charles Matthews is definitely right about not using AfD for cleanup. We already have {cleanup} available as a tag, and that's much more appropriate (per nom who states in the AfD itself that the "topic is notable"). Voting "keep", BTW, doesn't obligate a voter to do the cleanup her/himself—doing so is great, but not everyone has expertise in everything. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks better after the clean-up and there is a lot of scope for a good article here. Keresaspa 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Was cleaned up significantly since Paul's nomination. All who voted "Delete" prior to Charles' work, please review the new version. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move What salvageable content is here should be moved to the 'Eugenics and the state, 1890s-1945' section of Eugenics, which is a very fine article and is where readers can find additional information as well as context. With respect, I find the cleanup commendations confounding. The Eugenics article illustrates a number of highly dubious assertions in this. Most notably, the author has conflated a science (genetics) with a social philosophy (eugenics), unless I have somehow missed the Japanese eugenics degree available as a pre-war discipline. Also, the last line, Eugenic thinking probably had wider effects. Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated. Military personnel who violated these instructions were severely punished is nonsense. Since when did Japanese society, especially the military, need eugenics to promote a world-view based on racial superiority? Instead, the theory of eugenics and social Darwinism worked well within a social system that already fostered such a view. Bottom line: moving this to Eugenics will get this content the cleanup it desperately needs. (My comment is based on the Revision of 10:15, 27 September 2005.) Dottore So 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I still stand by my nomination, and while the article is much less of a mess than it was, my reasons for the nomination included the lack of references, the vague information, and the poorly phrased article title. As I did indeed say, the topic is notable and article-worthy, but it would be better to have a one sentence stub than a badly titled, vague, sloppy article. Sure, I could have added the cleanup tag and forgotten about it, but in my opinion it's better to start from scratch. Hey, look, there is potential for an excellent article about the topic, but let's do it right, eh? (Note: I was going to follow Neutrality's suggestion and create the article Eugenics in imperial Japan, but I was unsure as to what the article itself should consist of.) Paul 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Had my browser not been glitchy and Dottore So's comment been visible to me, I'd have just saved a couple minutes and said I agreed with him. Paul 19:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Eugenics in Imperial Japan.--Apostrophe 00:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move as per Apostrophe. --Apyule 06:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Will you realy keep an article like this (so short, such statements: "Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated.") with no references? -- Andy.we 12:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Will you vote to delete an article, not nominated here for lack of references, before requesting that references be supplied? (NB it is easier to get sound references for Nazi Germany, say, on a given point, by a factor of about 100.) Charles Matthews
  • Hi Charles. I did not want to vote, because I have no detailed knowledge about japanese war crimes. In this case I learned that some Wiki-Links lead to well documented articles Sadao Araki or International Military Tribunal for the Far East for instance, so my critical question me be without substance. I hope you will except this as excusion. Greetings -- Andy.we 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Move as per Apostrophe.Gator1 18:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep any probs this article has are not solved by deletion. Alf ^melmac 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with above comments. Amren ^(talk) 23:39, 3 October 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.