Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper

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. - Philippe 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper[edit]

Disputed prod - no improvement since first compiled in 2005, completely unsourced. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's rationale for removing the prod on the article's talk page. I'll notify the appropriate projects, and perhaps someone will take interest. Xymmax (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—What is the time frame for this article? World War II, or any historical period? At present it doesn't say.—RJH (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and fix header. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix -- notify the relevant wikiprojects and they'll add 'em to their list of TBDs. It's a WP:SOFIXIT situtation, eh? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Apparently, the time frame is World War II, although you can't tell it from the article itself. It's a worthwhile topic, but nominator is correct... completely unsourced, as are the articles this takes you too. I never can figure out people who write detailed articles about things, but they're too fucking stupid to mention where they got their facts. Mandsford (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems as if there's something there should be sources for with some clarification on time frame as noted above. Refer to WP Japan and probably Military history, although I'm not too familiar with their scope. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources available to provided references for this article. search = Japanese "Metropolitan Fortification System" Jeepday (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, there seems to be no actual context, just a plain list, and with almost everything red-linked, it doesn't seem like there is much to say about the topic at all. Collectonian (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've been asked to come back. Having lived in Japan, I don't doubt the availability of English language sources. However I think the relevant projects may be aware of offline or native-language sources that we're not familiar with, that's why I'm leaning keep. It can be deleted if there is proof these sources don't exist. It's weak but I'm still leaning keep TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot imagine that a suitable search of Japanese sources would not find them, so its sourceable. Every installation of that sort in every country will have printed or online sources. Given that most of these are WWII, it'll be printed military history. some might even be in English. I see a number in OCLC from that period in English from US Intelligence sources -- Search by entering the place name. e.g. [1] DGG (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've also been asked to come back, but I still believe that the best answer is keep and remand to the relevant wikiprojects, as they have people with access to specialized, off-line and non-English sources. If no improvements have been made to the verification of this article within a suitable time frame -- I suggest at least a few months, given the likely nature of sources -- we can revisit the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article history I don't see any reason to believe an eventualistic approach is going to result in a transformation in the next few months, given there have been no improvement since 2005. PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree -- the relevant projects were just notified, got to give them a chance TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, if you look at TC's link above, you'll notice that the same day the tags went on, a member of each project notified showed up to further tag and assess the article. I think further time is likely to be productive in this case. Xymmax (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of why specifically working with projects is a Good Thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:03, 19 April 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.