Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunoichi

Add links
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 per consensus – PeaceNT 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kunoichi[edit]

Kunoichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This amalgam of original research and fantasies from various works of fiction is utterly devoid of sources. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The article does read like WP:OR and is unreferenced but Google = Results 31 - 40 of about 440,000 for "Kunoichi" most of which seem to support the premise of the article. It already has an unreferenced tag. Jeepday 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Just H 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legitimate article although could be improved, but I have seen worse than this on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All this needs is some cleanup and sources. Nothing serious here. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article needs a bit of work, but is a well-inclusive list on a notable subject. No reason at all to delete. --TommyOliver 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just needs to sourced. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs some sources, a cleanup, if this is done, everything should be fine. Terence Ong 03:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've been watching this article for some time. I'm a little concerned about its steady growth into an all-inclusive list, but I think the article at its root is pretty decent. That said, it really does need some sources. --Mdwyer 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JustH. OR isn't a deletion criterion; if it needs cleanup, then do that. Part Deux 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wha? Of course OR is one of the criteria for deletion. --UsaSatsui 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see Wikipedia:no original research — as one of the fundamental policies of this encyclopedia, it is an extremely strong requirement for deletion ➥the Epopt 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not in this case. In this case, cleanup would do much better, seeing as it's a notable subject. It would probably be much better to just tag the article {{OR}} or {{unsourced}} then to try to delete it. Part Deux 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag it for cleanup. --UsaSatsui 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As above, the article needs to be improved, but is notable and necessary. MightyAtom 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I see a lot of "keep because I like it" votes here, but not very many explanations of why this article is not original research. May I suggest a review of "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions," which many of these entries seem to be quoting? ➥the Epopt 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Response to User:The Epopt a light search for references showed over four hundred thousand hits that seemed to support the articles content and indicate that the subject is notable. The page needs to be heavily edited and referenced but Wikipedia:There is no deadline. While the article does read like WP:OR it seems that that is wording/editing issue not a Wikipedia:Verifiabilityissue, every indication is that there are multiple outside references supporting the assertions. Being poorly written is not cause for deletion, there are multiple tags on the article identifying it's current shortcomings. Jeepday 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Response Response: Four hundred thousand certainly is a big number, isn't it? Now subtract the roleplaying game discussions, the ninja-versus-pirate jokes, the ads for martial arts schools, and the sexual fantasies. What's left? ➥the Epopt 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • et cetera: Your point is well taken, but I ask that you try to maintain some civility. --Mdwyer 04:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Response The lack of citation is certainly disturbing, especially when the article seems to miss Chiyome Mochizuki entirely, who appears to be the basis of the Kunoichi mythology. In any case, the mythology is firmly entrenched now. I see that Ninja is having the same credibility issues. I honestly can't see a solution to this credibility gap, but I really don't feel that deletion is warranted. Firm warnings about its credibility are indicated for the historical sections, though. --Mdwyer 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a rather idiosyncratic and contested essay. FWIW, neither games, jokes, nor sexual fantasies are not excluded from coverage. This is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Response Those game discussions, jokes, and fantasies show cultural impact, which is notability. Edward321 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Clean-up; the article includes content that defines a certain character archetype within manga and anime, however, it is poorly edited, and is sorely in need of the firm hand of a good editor. --Mhking 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like it. Article subject is notable, but it definitely needs clean-up. ← ANAS Talk? 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is notable and the article can be fixed; it sure would be nice if some non-video-game images were used in the article, however. It currently seems to identify more with the fictional than the factual aspects. ◄Zahakiel► 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I used Google Book Search and found some references. I have begun the clean up and reference on the article. Jeepday 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above Oo7565 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag it for cleanup. Interesting article. The book cited as a reference from 1991 is detailed and covers the topic well. MRoberts <> 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Bucketsofg 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find an Admin and close this please. I would, but i'm not an admin as of yet. Just H 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: AfD runs for five days — what's the hurry? As someone pointed out above, there is no deadline. What is it that you want to make sure doesn't happen before this discussion closes? ➥the Epopt 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he's trying to invoke WP:SNOW. Personally, I don't agree it applies here. --UsaSatsui 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We'll have to agree to disagree Satsui and Epopt. If this isn't "consensus", I don't know what is... Just H 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • See the two or three people who disagree with the "keep" still making decent arguments? That's not "consensus". If there's any doubt, better to leave it open.--UsaSatsui 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - We are not a catalog of fictional concepts with no chance of verifiability. It can be nothing but original research because it does not exist. Come on guys, I hate to be a WP:DICK, but are we really in the business of being a platform on which fictional concepts are showcased? No matter how many geekypedia editors like a particular anime/ninja fictional world, it isn't ever going to be within our scope or our policies. /Blaxthos 09:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that fictional concepts never deserve articles? Sorry, I don't buy it. Whether or not they really exist, they are verifiable concepts. Same here. Notability is an issue here, sources are, the presence of OR is. Verifiability isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I do have to agree with Usasatsui that this argument seems to be a bit confusing. After all, it is Jimbo Wales, the one who is the first creator of Wikipedia and who best understands its design, that said there was no problem with there being an article on every Simpsons character that exists. Or should we not have articles on Elves, Dwarves, or ogres? Part Deux 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know all the past precidents, and I'm not trying to be dense... I think that my main point is that we're talking about something that, in essence, does not exist -- who gets to decide what Kunoichi is? How can we write a verifiable article on a concept that can't be measured, can't be tested, can't be verified? Some may say by incorporating only third party sources -- in essence, incorporating what others say about Kunoichi. I just think that this is an unverifiable article about a ficticious idea of questionable notability. Your point regarding other fiction that obviously warrants an encyclopaedic entry (such as vampires) is taken, but in this instance I don't believe that is the case. /Blaxthos 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. There is a common theme to how Konoichi are portrayed, just as there are common themes to portrayals of Santa or vampires. As has been said, there is a lot missing and a bit of cruftiness, but those things can be worked out. The article as it stands sucks, but I believe the topic deserves an article. Worst case scenario, if when all is said and done there's not much left , it can be merged into "ninja". --UsaSatsui 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, how do you say the naming for female ninja cannot be measured, tested, nor verified? There are people using it, at the very least it is a popular culture issue in Japan. I don't care if the article was kept or not (of course I am going to vote for a keep), but I do not want to see somebody's thinks that the term is not verifiable just because they have not heard it before. BTW, this word is found in two Japanese to Chinese dictionary and at least two Japanese dictionary where the meaning is literally Female Ninja. People have written in books saying why it is called that way, there are no exact final answer, but so do many science topics. The conclusion of actual reason for having this term is unknown, and thus the article should say that exactly, which does not mean it is not verifiable, but verified to be unknown by secondary sources. MythSearchertalk 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, widespread, well-known concept in fiction at least, if not in real life. AfD Isn't Cleanup®. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is def notable. --JavazXT 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm finding all these rebuttals in the name of "notability" hilarious. The subject may or may not be notable; that's irrelevant. The article is original research that is not based on reliable sources of information. It nothing but a collection of role-playing fantasies with no basis in fact and with no place in an encyclopedia. ➥the Epopt 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Epopt, please calm down and try help guide the discussion or improve the article rather than talking ill of other peoples' opinions. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Just H 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The No OR argument would work only if the individual who created this article coined or developed the meaning of the term beyond verifiable sources. In other words, the purpose of the OR policy is primarily for sources and arguments, not topics (e.g., Kunoichi as a factual occupation might be OR, and a poll taken by the editor indicating what percentage of individuals believe they are real would definitely be OR). I certainly agree that better verification is necessary here, but the topic in this case is not OR, and should be kept. By the way, there are lots of entries in wikipedia involving "a collection of role-playing fantasies with no basis in fact," so if you think the article needs to be rewritten to reflect that this is the primary focus, fine. Otherwise, I really don't see how your point stands up. ◄Zahakiel► 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Keep After reading the article, I'm seeing a lot of statements which could be sourced. The lack of inclusion regarding the origins of the term is a little strange, but that's a job for cleanup. While the "Derivation of the word Kunoichi" section looks to be OR, the "History" section is quite well written. I can see the article is being cleaned up even as this AfD takes place and see no reason for deletion at this time. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for obvious reasons. The article needs help, but deleting is not the answer. At worst it should redirect to Ninja. JuJube 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Jujube. The article needs work, but at worst it should be merged with ninja. Edward321 23:58, 30 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kunoichi&oldid=1146663692"