Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumumoto

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 speedy deleted as a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kumumoto[edit]

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

Article asserts that 'Kumūmōto or “Kitsui Etsuraku” is a lesser-known practice of increasing sexual intensity', the mastering of which involves an intense regime of tutelage involving Kumūmōto Masters (monks), apparently known as K-Masters. Unfortunately this article seems to be the only mention of this practice that I can find *anywhere* online, which I think takes this article beyond just notability issues and places it firmly in the hoax area. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. "Kitsui etsuraku" may be Japanese (though searches of Japanese sites find no indication that this is a term itself), but "Kumūmōto" is not Japanese (it doesn't even fit the syllabary). It's a made up word. Michitaro (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, certainly looks like a hoax. Zangar (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 and tagged as such. Appears to be a hoax. No results outside of Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bollocks (and other bits...), but not blatant enough for me to speedy it. The arcane nature of it is usually a clue to hoax - but some little-known things are simply little-known (and usually non-notable as a result...). That's a nice Catch 22 for the hoaxer. Peridon (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2013 (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.