Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination 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 Merge (non-admin closure), per emerging consensus and nominator consent below. WP:BOLD. Protonk (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in Japan

Reflecting personal view. Attacking a group or society. Exceptional claims should have exceptional sources. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: much of this article appares to be an indirect recreation of material in a previously deleted article: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAIBS for discussion -- The Anome (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no 'exceptional sources' in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibsvaibs (talk • contribs) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - only a very borderline case of WP:SOAP, and reliable, secondary sources are out there. Needs a good NPOV and grammar edit, but not a delete. "Lack of exceptional sources" is not a reason for deletion. -Samuel Tan 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article could use academic sources to be more reliable but topic is real. Needs to be cleaned up to present other viewpoints but this is a valid topic and should not be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per The Anome. Given that a significant chunk of the article appears to be from a previously deleted article. Merge any useful information, if possible, to Racial issues in Japan. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discrimination depicted in the article may be real but it does not hold an encyclopedic significance. Every country has its own law and procedures, in the section,Discrimination in bank, it says that an American was not given home loan because he did not have permanent citizenship. According to me its not a discrimination its just a policy that a bank follows. The section Minorities in Japan, does not become encyclopedic or factual only because it has infringement from U.S. department of state.Hitrohit2001 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]

It may be policy but that does not make it non-discriminatory. I agree that the article is not written well and parts of it may even be "unencyclopedic" but the topic is worthy of getting an article. In the future, this article may even go in depth as to why such practices are in place and are widely accepted by Japanese society as "normal" and "fair", and the socio-economic implications of having an anti-immigration policy. --Polaron | Talk 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an anti-immigration policy, if that American would have been officially migrated to Japan and was being barred of the Home Loan. Most of the Local bank grants loan to those who holds permanent citizenship of that country where loan is being originated. However, apart from Suruga bank issues, this article does not place any other substantial evidence of discrimination. NPOV on such article is must as it may harm the image of a particular group or society. =>Hitrohit2001 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]

Keep those "exceptional sources" exist. Xenophobia in Japan is well known and studied extensively. Obviously an article linke this needs to be cleaned up but the subject has been covered in plenty of scholarly journals. Also many good modern histories of japan cover the subject. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Xenophobic nature of Japanese people, however, this article does not deal with Xenophobia in Japan directly. It, more or less, looks like act of imputing blame of racism on Japanese people.
I would like to know, which of those sources are exceptionally substantial.
Hitrohit2001 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]

Well, xenophobia is largely indistinct from racism. But let's do some sources:

And so on. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia and Racism are two different thing. However, I don't think these sources verifies the claims made within the article under consideration, if it does then it should be included in article.
We are not discussing the natural tendency of japanese. This article attacks on a particular community with no solid verification of the event, which is being used as an example of discrimination.
There should be atleast one strong point within the article which makes Discrimination in Japan an encyclopedic subject. I find none.--Hitrohit2001 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]

I disagree on the xenophobia bit, but that is too nuanced an issue for here. Basically my point is this. The article appears to not be about discrimination in Japan, but discrimination is a well covered subject in the sourcing there. I can find more articles (especially ethnographies of non-japanese workers) about discrimination but there is enough in the sources I cited above to fill out a reasonably large article. So remove the COATRACK content and keep the article. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content of the article is largely identical to the recently deleted "VAIBS" article, namely regarding one bank's discriminatory practice of demanding alien cards of foreigners before doing business with them. The only thing added is a more general overview with citations, and the complaint of a certain non-citizen regarding a home-loan from a different bank (i.e., not Suruga) - an action perfectly understandable, if perhaps indeed discriminatory(I doubt any bank in the world would give a home-loan to a non-resident without a permanent adress, but I grant that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't apply here). This seems like nothing more than a VAIBS-led attempt to recreate content that was already deleted, using the vehicle of a broad sociological phaenomenon, and indeed, the article was largely created by an editor with the name "vaibsvaibs". If the article is to stay, it should be completely rewritten, and the VAIBS content should be inspected under the light of the recent deletion. I'm leaning towards outright deletion, however, since I believe we have plenty of "discriminatory Japan" articles as it is, and I see no reason to create new ones, rather than improve the existing ones. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete as WP:COATRACK recreation of VAIBS (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAIBS), or merge and redirect to Racial issues in Japan. One way or another, the unreferenced VAIBS references must go, unless proper cites can be produced to support them. -- The Anome (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of this revision, the COATRACK accusations are removed. Introduction of any of the source material provided above should be sufficient to merit retention. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I shall be supporting the proposal of merging the current version of article with Racial issues in Japan. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
Merging that looks like a consensus to me. I'm going to merge it to Racial Issues in Japan. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 23 July 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.