Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolen Artifacts from Asia found in 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. Though ostensibly there is a huge delete consensus, many of the delete voters seem to believe that content could be merged--since there is more than one article author this is not possible. Another reason for deletion given is the name--this can be solved by moving the article. One delete voter wanted deletion "per nom" although in fact the nominator was asking for merge suggestions.

There is therefore no consensus on a course of actions that can be performed under the GFDL. I therefore invoke the cornerstone of our deletion policy: When in doubt, don't delete.

This is a problem that cannot be solved by AfD. I ask those who think the content is useful to find a suitable article and merge, and those who think the title is wrong to move it to a new title and delete the redirect.

Closing is difficult, and it's easy to get it wrong. I would not oppose an early relisting of this article if anyone feels strongly that I have got it wrong. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Stolen Artifacts from Asia found in Japan

Merge? While I do think the topic may have some merit, I don't think that NPOV can be achieved with that title, and I'm not sure the topic warrants its own page. Perhaps someone can suggest a good place to merge this material. -- Reinyday, 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete b/c with a merge, POV title would remain. Roodog2k 01:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not persuaded that the title is problematic enough to warrant deletion. On the presumption that the article is true, and items have been returned, they must have been at the least taken from Asia, and they certainly weren't borrowed! If they were 'taken' during conflict, they were probably stolen under any common definition. That the word might cause offense to some doesn't make it POV. Seeing as I can't think of a merge target, I'll abstain. -Splash 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "Stolen" refers to an unlawful act. While the "taking" of the artifacts in question was probably arguably unfair, it certainly doesn't seem to have been unlawful. Therefore "stolen" is inappropriate. (Not to mention that it is clearly offensive.) KissL 09:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, offensive title. The content may be added to Foreign relations of Japan, Sino-Japanese relations, and similar articles, in a more NPOV way. KissL 09:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• You can't delete the edit history and keep the content. It's in violation with the GFDL. Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Japan and/or Sino-Japanese relations as suggested above. If current title is a problem move to Stolen art in Asia before merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. DV8 2XL 10:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move, merge and redirect as per Mgm. David Sneek 12:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Stolen art in Asia is no better. Thats still POV. The issue isn't with the word "Japan" its with the word "stolen". Roodog2k 14:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. How about we move it to Artifacts from Asia found in Japan, then merge the content into one of the above suggestions? -- Reinyday, 21:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge any useful information into the appropriate articles. DO NOT REDIRECT; the name is POV and a redirect would be pointless as nobody will search for this topic under this name. Neutrality^talk 21:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• per Neutrality, delete and do not redirect. Cmadler 13:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Neutrality. But please see Japanese cultural artifacts controversy, which I just spent the last hour laboring over. Uncle Ed 15:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Phroziac ^(talk) 13:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To verbose and over-detailed. This can be mentioned elsewhere. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:09, 9 September 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.