Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ningen

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 delete per WP:V. No reliable sources have appeared during the AfD, and the "keep" opinions do not give any indications that any may be forthcoming. Sandstein 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ningen[edit]

Speculation on the existence of a legendary creature. Only one reference that does not appear to be reliable. TN‑X-Man 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep It's an article about a Cryptid, we have many such articles, and is not speculation on its existence. It's just documenting what the cryptid is supposed to look like, the legends about it etc. The User who created this said in his edit summary that it is work in progress, and that means there will be more edits to it. You didn't even leave him 10 minutes to expand, you could have at least waited a few hours and see what would happen. If that's now biting nothing is. Articles don't spring fully formed from nowhere...--Phoenix -wiki 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Remilo (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to mermaid(see below)~~Delete~~ unless stronger sources can be found. Right now all that's there are some "artists' impressions", and if that's all that can be gotten, this cryptid isn't going anywhere.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on continuing the article, and I have other reliable sources for future paragraphs. Remilo (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The above keep arguements have convinced me that an article on this can exist, but the current one is pretty bad. It needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone and could use some better references. I'd like to give the author and others more than just five days for these improvements, so a keep here shouldn't preclude later AfDs if problems cannot be solved. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete No evidence this is widely noted in independent, reliable sources (WP:NOTNESSIE). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

The article has had a lot of information added to it since the deletion tag was first put up. More information will also be added in the next few days. Remilo (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete - article is pure nonsense. References are a joke. All google results appear to be anime related --T-rex 03:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not nonsense. There are several popular manga and movies that contain the word Ningen, because it translates to human, which is a wildly used word.Remilo (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger-than-any-of-the-people-above delete, at least till credible sources are provided. Ningen is indeed the standard Japanese word for human. It's used a little more broadly, for some applications where English would use person and the like. It's normally written 人間, not ニンゲン; but as ニンゲン is katakana it's acceptable (as is にんげん). Japanese Wikipedia redirects ニンゲン to 人間, explained as human; it also has a disambiguation page for 人間, which doesn't mention this. The sources given for this article are underwhelming. (Actually they're not sources in the normal sense: at least one of them is translated to form this article, which thus might, strictly speaking, violate copyright.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hey ningen sucker, ah ningen ningen Delete (If you want a reason, I've read the article, and I can't believe people are taking it seriously for a moment. It's nonsense.) JuJube (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This article was marked for deletion when it was only one paragraph long, and had only one source. Since the article has been expanded and had a lot more information and sources in it I think it should no longer be subject for deletion. When writing the article I made sure to say that it might exist, and that they were alleged photos. Phrases that keep the story neutral, true and correct under the Wikipedia:five pillars. Also the article is not "speculation" as Tnxman307 said.Remilo (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've stricken out the duplicate !votes by User:Remilo. You get only one, Remilo. Deor (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed so they are no longer votes. Remilo (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V unless some actual reliable sources are found. Discussion-board posts (and copy/pastes of same on other Web sites) don't cut the mustard. Deor (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not delete for a week than come back and review.If reliable sources are not found then delete.Basically, delay postpone deletion for now until article has had time to improve.Xp54321^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm keeping my vote as a delete. The sources that are currently cited (blogs and forum posts), are not reliable sources no matter how much you stretch it. So far this is just a vague rumor going around some forums. Not wide-spread enough to meet the inclusion criteria.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I suggest that instead of keeping or deleting the article, that it is moved. Since essentially it is a giant Antarctic mermaid, I suggest it is made as a section in the mermaid article. Some of the sources are reliable, and if the information stated from the other sources is also on those pages, then that only those are kept, and all other sources deleted. If the information from the other sources is NOT in the reliable sources, then the rest is deleted. Remilo (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mermaid per Remilo.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Umm, I've read this article and I've read Mermaid, and, frankly, I don't see any connection at all. What makes you think that would be a good merge target? Deor (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (or should I say "very strong comment"?): Still not worthy of being merged anywhere. A week ago, Remilo wrote above: I plan on continuing the article, and I have other reliable sources for future paragraphs. So where are these sources? Right now we read: Recently in the Antarctic Ocean, some research was done. The Japanese government called for scientific whaling, and they may have found something. A report containing a possibly real photo was leaked onto the internet. The report claimed [blah blah blah]. (I'll forgo comment on the wonderful Japanese euphemism of "scientific whaling".) So what is the title of this report? Where was/is it linked on the internet? (Give us a URL.) And what credible news source -- something like Asahi Shinbun, Mainichi Shinbun, Yomiuri Shinbun or Nihon Keizai Shinbun, as opposed to some supōtsu shinbun, weekly magazine featuring girls spilling out of undersized bikinis, blog, private Geocities site, etc. -- reports on this report and treats it as at least probably genuine, as opposed to a hoax? (NB I'm not expecting evidence that this antarctic beastie is genuine, merely evidence that the evidence for it is taken at all seriously by a nontrivial number of sane, sober, educated adults.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 14 June 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.