Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoge


 * 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. If anyone feels it is an appropriate transwiki to Wiktionary, let me know and I'll temporarily undelete it. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahoge

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable neologism/fancruft. Has been tagged unsourced since June 2008 and probably always will be for lack of secondary sources. tgies (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has had the non-notability and original research templates up as well (in some form or another) since 7 Sept. 2008, and that's terrible. There's a point where enough warning is enough, and there's no real prima facie evidence to support the notion that this is reasonable to include as an article (particularly its own) to begin with. If this were going to get fixed, it almost certainly would have happened by now, and, well, it hasn't. One editor tried to remove the templates themselves instead of improving the article, but I guess that didn't work! Poor guy. G-Flex (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And thats more then you have done, clearly. Also, since when is posting something like "This is immeasurably unconscionable and I thrust my indignation upon you without pause or remose" on an articles talk page considered appropriate? Anyway, as I said on the talk page feel free it condense the article into a larger work. Also feel free to do the work yourself since you clearly think that the work of others is without merit. Lando242 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:BOP) The contents of the entire article has been challenged for nearly two years with not a single reliable source added to the article in tall that time. You claim that the Japanese article has sources, but I see no sources listed there, or any other language Wikipedia except for one that references another English language Wikipedia article as a source. I'm calling BS on on your chastising other editors for not doing YOUR work on sourcing the articles contents for you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the "BS" and "chastising" comment G-flex made on the articles talk page and get back to me. I'm not the one that started the bizarre tone of this conversation. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I did find an anime terminology article on the 'pedia, seen here. If anyone would like to tranfer some of the info over go ahead. I guess at this point I would be considered biased as to weather it should be kept at all so I'll leave it up to one of you guys to do it if this article is deleted. Lando242 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lando242, please stop trying to make this into something personal. tgies (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just thought that G-Flex's post on the articles talk page was offensive and that his tone was very condescending and rude. So I responded in kind, I'm sorry if it came off badly. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced and seemingly fan-made term; no extensive coverage in reliable sources, no coverage at all really. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a Japanese loanword, not a fan made term. Please do a little bit more research before making decisions next time. Lando242 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove it.. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn/214075/m0u/あほ/%20 http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn/214075/m0u/あほ/ has a basic definition. Hope that helps, but since its in Japanese I kinda doubt it. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotHair?from=Main.Ahoge is a more detailed English article but I don't think TV Tropes is considered a reliable source. Then again many people don't want you using Wikipedia as a source, so YMMV. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I found 275,000 Ghits for "アホ毛" and 13,300 for "アホげ". I haven't the faintest idea what any of them mean, but maybe someone who speaks Japanese can check and see if any are relevant or notable? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on what I see, this should be further looked into before being deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Can you point to any reliable sources supporting any of the article's claim? No one denies the word "exists", but so does every other word the moment its spoken or written. That doesn't make them notable, nor does it mean that the article is making a factual claim. Yes, the Japanese have a term for "foolish hair" and "looking stupid", that doesn't mean that either is actually an anime/manga concept by any stretch. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that not every single concept in the universe belongs in its own Wikipedia article (or any, necessarily) as per the site's standards. People have had years at this point to "look into" it and nobody has. How long do we have to give it, exactly? G-Flex (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "There is no deadline" is not meant to serve as an excuse for keeping an article that will never meet the criteria for inclusion on life support. tgies (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that if you aren't willing to make the effort to improve an article you'd shouldn't bother to try and get it deleted either. You've clearly made no effort to do anything to the article to improve it, yet you blame other for them not doing the work themselves. "Do as I say, not as I do" sums that up pretty well. Lando242 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman. Nobody is "blaming" anybody. And why on earth would I "make the effort to improve" an article that I believe is tacitly unimprovable in the sense that it will not and can not meet the criteria for inclusion? That's nonsensical.
 * "I don't think this article can ever be appropriate for the encyclopedia."
 * "Well, why don't you FIX IT."
 * Doesn't make sense. tgies (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the same token, if you're that certain that there remains some hidden merit in this article warranting its inclusion if only we'd all go and "make the effort", why don't you do that yourself and return to the discussion when you have? tgies (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you feel the need to reply to yourself? Just asking, I thought it odd, so don't thinking I'm trying to call you out or anything. Anyway, I did try to find sources, I even posted them on the articles talk page and no one ever commented on them. Since I couldn't get a peer review of their reliability I didn't add them to the article. I guess next time I make an article I'll just add them and see what happens. It'll give me something to think about if I ever try to re-add a better version of the article in the future. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the burden of proof is on the one who's adding the information. In other words, you should already have sources available when you add the information, as opposed to trying to find them later. Seriously though, citing sources you're slightly unsure of is better than adding information for which no sources are cited at all. G-Flex (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I will be sure to do that in the future. Lando242 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: First GHit in Japanese] is the Japanese language Wikipedia article. It has the same problems as this article: 独自研究, and a dearth of 情報源. While there is no deadline for sorting these things out both here and on jp.wikipedia, can we wait that long? Yes, I do see the lack of logic in this statement. What's more, this once again highlights a number of my gripes with the WP:AFD process, etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is entirely original research and cannot be backed up by reliable sources, therefore failing the core policy on verifiability. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:G-Flex; I also can't find any reliable sources to substantiate the article or show its notability.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google translate on the talk page of the Japanese article for this shows a similar discussion as this one.  The expression is used a lot to refer to hair like this, in the beauty industry.  Google results for the Japanese name of it, shows many hits.  .  This can be verified as a real thing, and thus meets all Wikipedia requirements.  Japanese Google news search shows results .  This  is one of them, the expression used in relation to Anime.  If Google news says that is a reliable site for news, and they use the expression in relation to Anime with that sort of hair, then that should prove its a notable genre.  Many other sources could probably be found, but that's good enough to convince me.   D r e a m Focus  01:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having trouble with Google book search not translating things. It does find hundreds of hits though, including an art book, and a book for hairdressers.  I see manga also appearing in that search.  Anyone who speaks Japanese can sort through that probably, or the many news results.  I suggest searching for the Japanese words for what we're looking for, as well as the Japanese word for manga or anime.  That will help narrow down the results in Google news and Google book search, should anyone want to find additional information.   D r e a m Focus  01:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we know that it's a word for something, and that the word is commonly used. This does not mean that it's a notable "genre" of anything. It's obvious the word isn't completely made-up, but a word existing and being used by people commonly does not mean that it deserves a Wikipedia article. G-Flex (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A notable aspect of various series. Just like cat ears or big eyes are common characteristics found in many works of manga and anime.   D r e a m Focus  02:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It being an aspect of anime character design doesn't mean it deserves its own article by any stretch. It would be rather absurd to include every one of these multitudes of character design quirks/features as independent articles on an encyclopedia; an article on character design in anime would be perfectly sufficient to describe them in enough detail. G-Flex (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikitionary as it doesn't belong here. It's never going to be anything other than a dicdef, which fits in surprisingly well over at Wiktionary. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.