Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaou

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaou

This article seems to be a translation from a Japanese original source, and it's not a good translation. Actually, it's almost incomprehensible. I tried to piece together some references from the Internet to consider a rewrite, but I couldn't find anything in English. Please list this article under Japan-related deletions, if there is such a thing. YechielMan 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which is across the road. Uncle G 02:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Uncle G. Just because the article needs translation cleanup or is obscure to a western audience does not mean that the article is without merit. --DavidH Oz Au 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Eastmain 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep per WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English even if it's a translation it needs references and it needs to be notable, neither of which this has it been shown to be. Jeepday 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep, the article has been improved and is now referenced. Jeepday 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum If the article is properly referenced to pass WP:N and WP:V at the end of this debate then consider my vote changed, if the article remains unreferenced then the article clearly fails policy and needs to go, until it can be recreated encyclopedicly (is that a word?). Jeepday 15:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The section you cite tells us that "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality" (emphasis mine), and no one has claimed that the references on this topic in English are of equal quality to the ones in Japanese on this very Japanese topic. Do you have any reason to dispute that the references are reliable sources showing notability? Dekimasuが... 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is encyclopedic; at least two Japanese encyclopedias, Japanese Encarta and Heibonsha World Encyclopedia, have an entry about it. --Kusunose 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per UncleG, and rename to Kaō (with Kao redirect) per WP:MOS-JA. The sentences appear to be direct (machine?) translation from the Japanese, but that in and of itself is not a deletion reason. Perusing google ("kao" + "signature"), it seems to be a common enough word in antiquities circles (swords, and other Japanese handmade goods) [1] [2] etc. Neier 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be Kaō (signature) or something and Kaō should redirect to the disambiguation page Kao per WP:DAB, similar to Gō and Gō (unit of measurement). --Kusunose 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with the (parenthetic) DAB. Signature seems like as good a choice as any. Neier 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not at all clear to me that this (or Gō, which has generated quite a bit of discussion) requires a parenthetical. An example to the contrary can be seen at Réunion and the disambiguation page Reunion. Dekimasuが... 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a machine translation of the top part of ja:花押. It obviously needs to be re-written or translated, but that doesn't require deletion. Rename per Kusunose. skip (t / c) 09:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per User:Neier. However, oppose translation from jawiki version due to the lack of reliable sources and inline citations there (and the fact that it conflates the concept of Tughra with that of Kaou, when they're two different things with separate roots). Better for us to roll our own from scratch, adding facts to it as we find sources (though we can certainly use that one as a guide). cab 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is or likely may be challenged, or it may be removed. Two editors have attempted to validate the article and failed. The question is not should we keep a poor translation, the question is does this article pass the three core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jeepday 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this is not verifiable is pretty ridiculous. User:Kusunose has already pointed to reliable sources (two Japanese encyclopedias), proving that this subject actually exists (i.e. not a hoax) and is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And have you tried a google search for 花押 and looked around among the fifty-eight thousand hits you get? There have been whole books written on the topic ([3] in the first page of results, for example). cab 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response No offense intended but the Article Kaou as it is fails WP:V and per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.. The topic may be notable but the article is challenged and remains unverified. Per the first sentence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. We are not talking about concepts of poor translations, or if a given subject is notable. The question is about the article and as it says in the AfD template Please improve the article if possible, so improve it so any argument about the notability or verifiability becomes moot. Jeepday 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: Problem with page: Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations). Solution: Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. There's quite a few steps that could be (and should have been) taken to get attention for this article before AfD'ing; asking for verification on relevant wikiprojects or regional noticeboards, for example. It's a complete and utter waste of everyone's time and effort to delete this just in case the people with the ability and interest to verify and clean it don't happen to have free time in the next 4 days. cab 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved. It is in good English and has sources. It's no longer an orphan. As a stub, it covers the most important points of the topic. Fg2 10:12, 17 February 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.