Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references to the Sengoku period


 * 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  --Anthony.bradbury"talk"  21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references to the Sengoku period

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - survived a previous AFD solely on the argument of keeping it separated from the article Sengoku period. Creating lists of trivia for the sole purpose of keeping the information out of the main article is unacceptable. As with any number of other similar laundry lists being passed off as articles, this should be deleted. Otto4711 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Total junk, this "page" basically says "so and so" took place in this era. Dannycali 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Redistrbute the information to respective pages, especially all the fictional setting references with links to the main article where needed. OOPS, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimante collection of information. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Fg2 01:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivia, unencyclopedic. Keb25 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because encyclopedic list that survived an earlier discussion and was renamed accordingly. Not a copyvio, nor a hoax and multiple users contributed to article, which demonstrates that interest is out there for readers to read and potentially continue to improve this article and it would be a shame to be exclusive of those reader and contributors.  As always, references could be helpful.  Perhaps something like this article, which even has a "Sengoku period in modern culture" section?  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As is sadly quite often the case, your reasons for wanting the article kept do not address the issues raised in the nomination. The mere fact that the article survived once before does not mean it should be kept now. Consensus can change and consensus has become relatively strong against these sorts of laundry lists. The fact that people have worked on it is also not a reason to keep it. Otto4711 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A number of these articles have been kept and revised lately, so if anything general consensus seems to be returning in favor of keeping, but just improving these articles. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletes outnumber keeps by roughly five or six to one. Otto4711 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we go by the notion that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that it therefore is not all about numbers or percentages? Even if it were five to one, that "one" could represent hundreds or thousands of editors and/or readers that find value in working on these kinds of articles.  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to the ratio of deleted articles vs kept articles, not the ratio of editors on one side or the the other. Otto4711 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename Despite its sophisticated title, this appears to be mostly about video games with samurais in them. I remember John Belushi in the classic "Dry Cleaner from the Sengoku Period" sketch on SNL... Mandsford 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic trivia list. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimante collection of information. --  Chris B •  talk  •  contribs  16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP != trivia catch-all. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per more trivia-trash with any verification.--JForget 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate trivia list of video games. Crazysuit 02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Collection of loosely associate topics, fails WP:NOT. Shouldn't have been kept last time if it was based on being better here than there. Jay32183 03:34, 11 September 2007 (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.