Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō (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 Keep Sufficiently sourced Mike Cline (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjatō[edit]

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

After nearly six years, this article still lacks any reference to reliable sources to collaborate any of the fictional claims it poses as fact, and even after a merge there appears to be no interest in finding any. Binarywraith (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once all of the original research has been removed, there is nothing left. --DAJF (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There does seem to be quite a lot of stuff out there about this, eg - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There does seem to be some disagreement about how much is genuine and how much is Hollywood fiction, and I'm not sure how notable those sources are (though plenty of people seem to sell the things). I've only gone for a weak keep based on those doubts. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keeep. Reliable sources? So hard to find, supposedly? OK. I present you for example this article Black Belt (btw the magazine article needs to be completely rewritten, it's a mess) or this whole book (no prevew avaible) or this fragment from a novel by Stephen K. Hayes or this and [7] and this and this fragments from some non-fiction books. And so on, just a few examples - but I guess this is enough? You guys (Binarywraith & DAJF) are just REALLY bad at research.You should be ashamed of yourself as you are apparently claiming to be na wannabe encyclopedia editors or something. --79.162.148.194 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and tell me what did you mean by "fictional claims it poses as fact", and what are your sources for this. --79.162.148.194 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to note that the claims the article makes, while within the ideas presented for fictional ninja in media, are not substantiated by any reliable source as attributes of a historical weapon. If you have good sources, please do add them! Binarywraith (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I just showed you it is in fact "substantiated by any reliable source as attributes of a historical weapon". What now? Oh and about "how much is Hollywood fiction" - Hollywood has nothing to do with this. If anything it would be "how much is Japanese popular culture fiction/myth/folklore". Maybe. --79.162.142.22 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why won't you check out the Japanese Wikipedia article on the subject and how is this constructed? --79.162.142.22 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked fairly briefly at the references provided by the anonymous editor above (excluding the one which is not available online). While I have not read every word of every one of them, I cannot immediately see that they support many of the statements in the article. If they do then perhaps the anonymous editor (or someone else) can point out just where the sources confirm what statements in the article. As for the sources given by Boing! said Zebedee, only a couple of them look reliable to me, and, far from confirming the content of the article, several of them actually contradict it, and suggest that the whole popular notion of Ninjato is largely mythical. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disagree with nominator, per sources given above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject per sources given above, including an entire black belt mag. article on it and frequent mentions in other Ninja-related works. It's true that sorting out how much is legend and how much is fact is not easy here but that's why an encyclopedia entry for it based on principles of neutrality, verifiability, no original research, and reliance on reliable sources will be useful: It's a common enough term that someone might want to get a better idea on what's fact and fiction. JJL (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many things have one face in the historical world and another in fiction. The fictional reality is not any less by being fictional. --Bejnar (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (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.