Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōka (2nd nomination)

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 incubate. Consensus seems to be leaning in the direction of keeping this, but not having it in article space until such time as it has been improved to meet our minimum standards. However, nobody has specified whose userspace it should be userfied to, and normally userfication is only done by request. The initial creator if the article is not longer active. So, moving it to the article incubator is the closest we can come to following that consensus, and at least there it isn't in one user's personal space but rather in an area aimed at encouraging collaboration. Article may now be viewed and edited at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Gogyōka. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gogyōka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Afd over a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōka was shelved on the basis of a commitment to improve the article, but there is no evidence of such improvement. All references ("Notes") refer to self-published books by the inventor of this poetic form. There is still no evidence of notability based on independent sources. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG; no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was kept a year ago to allow sources to be found, which still hasn't been done. This must now be taken as evidence that the required material does not exist. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking under the alternative name Gogyohka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I think its possible to find some indication of significance. I'm not saying that this article is not in need of improvement, it is and probably should be tagged that way, but a search of the web shows the term "Gogyohka" in decently common use, although not by very reputeable sources (still this hints toward the idea that this is decently significant, but would require some digging). Likely I'm guessing that this is a largely Japanese topic, with reputable sources limited to Japanese language sources (which may be hard to search for by either name), the larger web presence makes sense then in the light of the fact that there are always more non-reliable Japan-o-philes knowledgeable about a Japanese topic than reputable English language sources about that topic. All that being said, I did find a possible source for some more authoritative info about this topic, unfortunately it is A. not in my possession, B. in Japanese (or Chinese, I am not an expert in either language and I cannot generally tell the two scripts apart from a glance). But if some Japanese speaking Wikipedian could take a look at this and say what it says, that may give a good idea of what's what in terms of whether or not to keep this article:

http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/toModule.do?prefix=/search&page=/search_detail.jsp?seq=374029

By the way here's a link mentioning the poetry type by name, however, it is just in passing, again hinting toward notability although not necessarily giving any definite info: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/12/13/nation/7611687&sec=nation

Jztinfinity (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy As the nominator points out, there has been a significant period for improvement since the last deletion discussion. We should be cautious to avoid possible systemic bias against non-English sources, however there must be a realistic prospect of improvement in the near future for this to be retained as an article. I suggest Userfication if more convincing sources cannot be found at this time. As in the last deletion discussion, I encourage Japanese readers to consider the sources listed on Worldcat. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: This needs the attention of people who read Japanese. Comment left on the WP:JAPAN talk page. Sandstein 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument to delete rests on the assumption that this is not in independent sources, but I was easily able to find independent articles about this topic by going to the Asahi Shimbun website and typing in the term "五行歌" into the search box: [1] [2]. It's just possible that these are shilled articles or paid presentations of some kind, but unless someone can show that this is some kind of monkey business then I don't see the reason to delete this using the specified criterion of "having independent sources". JoshuSasori (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Also I don't think that the people have been lazy about updating the article is really a good reason to delete it, otherwise there about two or three million other articles which should be deleted. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Keep - plenty of sources available in Japanese at the above links, and elsewhere as shown by JoshuSasori. Here are a couple of books to start with: [3][4]. Any problems with the article can be solved through editing, rather than deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to　Yahoo!Japan,　the search number of 五行歌 is http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E6%AD%8C&search.x=1&fr=top_ga1_sa&tid=top_ga1_sa&ei=UTF-8&aq=&oq= and according to Google Japan, the search number of 五行歌　is http://www.google.co.jp/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=f&oq=%e4%ba%94%e8%a1%8c%e6%ad%8c&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYH_jaJP308JP320&q=%e4%ba%94%e8%a1%8c%e6%ad%8c&gs_upl=0l0l0l5087lllllllllll0&aqi=g5 When Japanese people search words or phrases in Internets, they never add a quotation mark to them. So these numbers are facts themselves in Japan. In conclusion, we hope gogyohka will have the developement in English speaking countries. Can you understand Japanese customs correctly, grab what you can? Please grab what you can! --Rappelle-toi (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Rappelle-toi has rehearsed this argument several times now in various places. The above comment displays a complete failure to understand how Yahoo! and Google Search work, despite this being explained several times. Quite simply, per Yahoo! Help
  To search for an exact phrase, put quotation marks around two or more words. For example, a search for "to be or not to be" returns only results containing the exact phrase inside the quotation marks.
  The same applies in Google. Thus, Google search for "to be or not to be" (with " "): 24,200,000 and for to be or not to be (without " "): 7,430,000,000. The first search finds the phrase, but the second finds any/all of the words in the search, but not necessarily the exact phrase. So, your results above are hugely distorted. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What you wrote above is only the customs in the western world. The Earth has not only the western world but the eastern world. Your way to search the words by adding a quotation mark belongs to only the western world. We, Japanese and Chinese, don't use the quotation mark when searching words or phrases. Can you understand the difference between them ? There is another culture different from yours. Please grab the difference correctly, grab what you can! The Earth is wide and large ! --Rappelle-toi (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just tried this out. On Google, a search for 五行歌 without quotes turned up 832,000 results, and a search for "五行歌" with quotes turned up 486,000 results. On Yahoo, a search for 五行歌 without quotes turned up 867,000 results, and a search for "五行歌" with quotes turned up 486,000 results. So it looks like gråb whåt you cån is right - sorry. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mr.Strasvarius, I'll repeat that we, Japanese people never use a quotation mark when we search japanese words or phrases in Yahoo or Google. Even if you search words with a quotaiton mark, at least the result number 468,000 is very numerous. Judging from the number and many publishments in Japanese, 五行歌 is rather notable in Japan. We hope it will have the developments in Wnglish speaking countries. --Rappelle-toi (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I assume that the man making a profit from the trademark 五行歌 must be delighted. --Fæ (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I'm changing my position to Userfy. While it appears from JoshuSasori's and Mr. Stradivarius's comments that there exists adequate material in Japanese to justify the existence of this article, in its current state it falls well below WP standards. I note that the nominator of the first AfD (over a year ago) stated, "As the nominator, I would like to withdraw the nomination on the basis of the current commitment to improve the article and the prospect of improvement in sourcing in the near future." Given that that did not happen, and that on this occasion there has been no undertaking to improve the article, it seems clear that Wikipedia:Userfication is the correct course to follow. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2012 (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.