Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination lawsuits and incidents in Japan

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 delete. Keeper ǀ 76 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination lawsuits and incidents in Japan[edit]

This article appears to be a personal, one-sided attack on a group or society. Two previous attempts to add similar articles with the same information had Afd discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAIBS which resulted in a deletion; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination in Japan which resulted in a merge with the more balanced Racial issues in Japan article. As written, the article is WP:SOAP, edited entirely by a single editor, User talk:Vaibs2, whose username indicates a definite problem with WP:COI. (VAIBS is a lawsuit advocacy group.) — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is certainly one-sided, that is a cleanup issue. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Changed, see below...[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced cleanup will really help here, since this article is largely a duplicate of Racial issues in Japan, at least in terms of the encyclopedic topics it could cover. As constituted now, and as the pagename seems to suggest, this article is a laundry list of incidents that allign with a certain POV. I would hold this violated WP:NPOV, but the broader problem is this is just a poor way of organizing articles to provide encyclopedic coverage a topic, when you're creating articles to list only examples on one side of the issue. --Rividian (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SOAPBOX. It is also borderline G10 due to the inflammatory nature of the article. MuZemike (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No more onesided in principle than Israel and the apartheid analogy was, and should be treated similarly. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Delete. WP:OTHERCRAP isn't a reason to keep. There's already an article, racial issues in Japan, that could be expanded and changed to a different title if necessary. This article is not only a soapbox, but could be considered a POV fork. =Axlq 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Racial issues in Japan, as the content is similar enough to make this a good outcome. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of this article seems to spread VAIB's claim over SURUGA BANK. The list of lawsuits are added just for to keep the article, probably because VAIBS was deleted. I agree to CactusWriter.--Mochi (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copiously sourced article about an encyclopedic topic. Unlike some of the "allegations of apartheid" articles where analogies are made to make a point, this is about cases filed in Japan's court system, some of which are successful, some not. The acknowledgement of one's right to file a discrimination lawsuit is the very antithesis of apartheid. I don't agree at all that this is a "soapbox". In fact, what the article underscores is that Japan is a democratic nation with laws against discrimination against minorities, and that there are people who have purposely availed themselves of their right to litigate under those laws. If some of the language seems too POV, that's why this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit Mandsford (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. There's really no need for this article as many of the subsections were covered already in other articles. Yes, this article is poorly written, some of the sources are to deadlinks, the citations are a mess and poorly organized, but those aren't reasons for deletion. The fact that it's a POV fork is a concern. In addition, I agree with others that some of the reliably sourced information can be added to Racial issues in Japan if need be. J Readings (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is fine, but WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (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.