Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjaken (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 fishhead64 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout much discussion, over 3 months later, the article still contains 0 references. Even the proponents of keeping this article cannot agree on the name of the object of which is intended to be described. Alan.ca 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; no sources, and thus fails WP:V and WP:RS; several editors on the Talk page suggest this is a hoax. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the subject is notable. The writing needs editing, but it would seem obvious that it is sourceable. I think the naming problem is just about the form of the word but not the word itself or the concept. DGG 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; no sources have been added since the first delete nomination and merge some time back, the page may even merit protection against recreation; even if the consensus is to keep, it should be radically cut to describe the blade and note the lack of verifiable sources - get rid of all the original research/opinion/ideas text. -- Medains 11:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: I was going to !vote Delete, on the grounds that the most-widely accepted name for this weapon in the English language was "ninjato," but gosh, I tried to pull up Ninjato and found that the nom had redirected it to Ninjaken. Then I find that the nom had redirected other permutations to Ninjaken. Going through the edit history, I find that nom has filed AfDs on various permutations and has set up redirect pages whenever possible, with some edit wars in the meantime. I don't quite claim this is a bad faith nomination, but it's looking to me that nom is trying to wipe all references whatsoever to this weapon off of Wikipedia, which has huge history all out there (29,000 Google hits to ninjato, 144,000 hits to ninja-to, and, interestingly enough, only 1000 hits for ninjaken), and I would like to know what version of the article nom does recommend keeping. RGTraynor 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seven sources added. RGTraynor 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sourcing by RGTraynor. No reason whatsoever for deletion now, I suggest Alan.ca withdraw his nom. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'll have more when I get home; I've several published sources for which I can't recall publication info off the top of my head, and I'd prefer to give page refs. RGTraynor 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - although some in-text citations of the referenced material would be nice. The sourcing concern of the nominator should not now be an issue, and having alternate names for an object is not a reason for removing data on said object. ◄Zahakiel► 21:48, 18 April 2007 (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.