Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōka


 * 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. As the nominator withdrew their nomination, and there were no calls for deletion by other editors, the consensus is to keep this article  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Gogyōka

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This appears to be a promotional article. There is no evidence of any impact for this claimed poetry form apart from one 36 page book (by Fiore) that appears unreferenced by anyone else. There are no matches in GScholar (making this unlikely to be a recognized form), two matches in GNews which appear insignificant mentions, possibly due to promotion, and one match in GBooks (Fiore's books). I note one match on Amazon but this is to a Books LLC "publication" and therefore circular and itself a negative sign. Raising for AfD rather than PROD due to potential for geographic bias in sources.

Taro Aizu has an associated AfD but this article should be judged on its own merits. Fæ (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and refocus as Enta Kusakabe--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Many writers of gogyohka are not experienced at editing Wikipedia articles. Please refer to the reaction to the proposed deletion of this article at Gogyohka Junction.--James  —17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Fæ - Thank you for your response on Gogyohka Junction. It is much appreciated.--James  —18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC).


 * I notice that in the Twitter community, the number poems tagged with #gogyohka is steadily increasing over time. To me this indicates an emerging poetic form and suggests it would be unwise to delete this Wikipedia article. I do not have the figures for a year ago, but a snapshot at the time of writing shows 262 Twitter posts in the last 24 hours tagged with #gogyohka. Stormerne (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Second, "self-published" is proving to be a sticky word to define in terms of sources. Enta Kusakabe posted this on Gogyohka Junction: "I have over 100 books which was published in Japan.
 * First, thanks so much to Fae for dealing with all of us and providing such thorough guidance. I think I'm getting the hang of what Wikipedia's standards and approaches are.  Let me ask two quick questions, though.  First, how much time can I get to improve the article before it will be deleted?  My time is limited, but if I had a month I could probably crank out a totally redone article that is much closer to what is expected.  If that means taking it down for now by way of userfication so be it.  Just know that I am not ignoring the issues--I just need time and help, and so patience.

All have ISBN nomber. Do you need all. My Gogyohka books are

maybe 30-40.

4 is my collections of Gogyohka.

How to write Gogyohka books and theory books are maybe

beyond 10.

Collections of many people's Gogyohka by my selection reach to 20.

All have ISBN cords. I established the publisher SHISEI-SHA (Company)for publishing poem books

for my ideal publicity. 300 stock holders.

It publishes 70% of our books. What is the definition of self-publication?"

So are books published by Shisei-Sha considered self-published if the company has shareholders but the company is led by the founder of the poetic form it publishes? This verges on being untranslateable culturally, I worry.Geaghant (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

These threads on http://tadoku.org, organized and run by Sakai Kunihide,a professor of Denki Tsushin University in Tokyo, Japan and an author of several books related to extensive reading. http://www.bunka.uec.ac.jp/profile/sakai.html In an attempt to show potentiality and increasing popularity of Gogyohka, threads are added here.
 * http://bbs.tadoku.org/kb7.cgi?b=yayakoshiki&c=e&id=5222
 * http://bbs.tadoku.org/kb7.cgi?b=yayakoshiki&c=e&id=5027
 * http://bbs.tadoku.org/kb7.cgi?b=yayakoshiki&c=e&id=5225
 * http://bbs.tadoku.org/kb7.cgi?b=yayakoshiki&c=e&id=5742


 * If the publisher is run by the author it is doubtful as a single-source, however if a range of authors use this publisher then it probably would count as a reliable source. To be robust more than one small publisher would be ideal. I recommend you add the best sources in your opinion to the article in order to support any claims or basic information about the poetry form, if they appear credible publications there would be a good rationale for keep as the nomination hinges on demonstrating impact. Normally at least 7 days are given for discussion but there is the option to userfy the article (providing you a draft to continue improving) if the article still fails the notability guideline in the opinion of an independent admin. If you wish to discuss details and collaborate with other authors for improvement, please use the article talk page in preference to this deletion discussion page. Note that forum threads would count as self-published and are rarely acceptable as sources. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks, Fae. I would like to request to userfy the article now, as it will take me longer than a week to improve this article enough to meet the notability guideline.  One last question: Once the page becomes a draft again, how do I go about resubmitting to make sure the revised draft meets the notability guideline? Geaghant (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on your work to improve the article I am happy to move to withdraw my nomination as below, hopefully an admin will be along shortly to close on this basis rather than going through a userfication, review and release cycle. I am concerned about the independence of sources you have added, but this is an area for discussion on the article talk page about what are reliable sources and what counts as self published. For example normally any Lulu publication is suspect and an ISBN that has no matches in WorldCat, Google Books or the British Library might indicate another source requiring further justification. Fæ (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As the nominator, I would like to withdraw the nomination on the basis of the current commitment to improve the article and the prospect of improvement in sourcing in the near future. I continue to be concerned about the potential for geographic bias as sources for this topic will tend to be in Japanese and untranslated and so would prefer to err on the side of keep for improvement rather than delete for current flaws in sourcing. A WorldCat search in Japanese shows a number of potential sources for further improvement. Fæ (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2011 (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.