Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jutsu


 * 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jutsu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article contains only impermissible content, and I do not believe it can be rehabilitated. It purports to be a disambiguation page, but jutsu is not a "term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article", nor a term that could appropriately be the title of any of the articles listed, contrary to WP:DAB. Further, the list of articles violates WP:DAB, because the listed articles are merely terms which include the disambiguation term. If the contents of the list are removed, the article will consist solely of a dictionary definition, in violation of WP:NOT. Finally, only the English dubbed version of the tv show Naruto uses the term "jutsu" as a noun or stand-alone term; in real life it is usually only used as a suffix in other words. Because it means "practical art" (or something like that), an article could be written about the "Practical arts of Japan", but, 1. that might be too broad (lots of things unrelated to martial arts also use the suffix jutsu); 2. members of such a class should probably each have their own article; and 3. at any rate such an article should not be titled "Jutsu", but should have an English title, such as "Practical arts of Japan", per WP:Use English. I recommend deletion, redirect to Jutsu (Naruto), or moving "Jutsu (Naruto)" to here. Bradford44 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) *Delete Dicdef/bad disambiguation and to link all possibly relevant articles would be a pain when the search will term them up if this is deleted. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. --Bradford44 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dicdef. Do not transwiki. --Targeman 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom but as a comment (and the ninja guys are really prone to this) is there are a whole mess of somethingjutsu which is more a set of techniques rather than a Japanese art per say (ie. suijutsu). Are these dictionary terms also?Peter Rehse 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Article has been significanly re-written to something useful needs some tidying but could be useful, might still fall under dicdef in which case trans-wiki would be appropriate as good info --Nate1481(t/c) 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Fg2 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jutsu (Naruto) as the only valid claim to the word as a stand-alone use. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) CHanged, see below.
 * Redirect to the Naruto article per Nihonjoe. All of the other things here would only belong in a "see also" section, and that's not necessary when there's nothing to disambiguate for the main term. The Naruto article should also migrate to the plain title for the same reason, but that can be done through Requested moves. I note that the nominator actually tried to redirect the page before, but got reverted. Whatever happens, this should not continue to be a dab page. Dekimasu よ! 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no longer a dab page. -- Hoary 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Either keep or else delete. Don't redirect to this article on "Naruto", at least until the latter is rewritten in order not to mislead. For here's an extract from the latter: Generally speaking, jutsu are divided into three categories: genjutsu, ninjutsu, and taijutsu (my emphasis). This is easily readable as explaining, well, "jutsu in general". If the article about some aspect of "Naruto" unambiguously limits itself to that fantasy world, fine; if it limits itself to a fantasy world but doesn't bother to keep reminding the reader of this, fine; but as long as it's readable as describing the real world it's a crap destination of a redirect for a morpheme that's widely used to refer to activities in the real world. &para; Should Japanese words and interjections get articles in en:WP? In general, I don't think they should; but I'm puzzled by the way in which Japanese terms from/for "popular culture" are written up, while this admittedly weedy effort on a morpheme of wider use is redirected to an article on one particular manga/anime. &para; Meanwhile, WP does have articles on plenty of other suffixes: I'm too sleepy/lazy to see how WP defines "dicdef", but these are hardly dictionary definitions in the usual sense, if only because most [normal] dictionaries don't linger over suffixes. -- Hoary 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I was sleepy when I wrote that. Of course jutsu is not a suffix. However, a lot of what are in Template:Table suffixes and Category:Suffixes aren't suffixes either. &para; The Jutsu article has now been altered. It still seems pretty superfluous to me, but not obviously more so than articles on other "suffixes" such as -izzle. And if juvenilia such as Animal Crossing: Wild World merit long, earnest descriptions, perhaps jutsu merits a short, simple explanation. -- Hoary 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS That's as sleepy and confused as what it sought to correct. Well, take a look at the little article. -- Hoary 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (withdraw nomination), now that it has been appropriately rewritten. At the time I nominated the article, I was not aware that there were "suffix" articles.  Although I might support a wholesale deletion of all such articles, as they are dangerously close to being pure dicdef's, in this case, I think that what has now been written is suitably encyclopedic.  Also, this presents an opportunity to write about the practical and philosophical meanings of jutsu as related to martial arts, and briefly, the difference with and change to dō. Bradford44 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reconsideration. Meikuappujutsu rulz OK! -- Hoary 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if citations to evidence of notability are added; otherwise, delete per WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh. You've now probably doomed the article to survival, because people are going to dig up some mumbo jumbo about the deep, metaphysical (?) significance of jutsu as opposed to dō (or at least vice versa). I find this kind of notability deeply soporific. Look, this is an innocent morpheme that exhibits fascinating metamorphoses uh I mean allomorphy thanks to the wonder of gemination. (Just don't tell this chap.) -- Hoary 23:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per rewrite. It now fits in with other "suffixes" and is acceptable as an article. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Daft, isn't it: We can't have word-dicdefs, but we can have morpheme-dicdefs! -- Hoary 23:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you can never have enough morphine ...er...morphemes. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE (renew nomination): Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is solely about a Japanese word (not about the subject that the word denotes), transliterated into English. There is already an entry for the word in the Japanese Wictionary, which is where this material should be treated. If it were an English word, the material would be appropriate for en:Wictionary, but not Wikipedia (English or Japanese). Finell (Talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Targeman 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you about WP not being a dictionary, Fine11. But where did you get the notion that jutsu is a word? Other perhaps than in some quaint mistranslation of some manga, it's no more a word than -logy or -hood is. (Yes, I tend to think that the whole lot should be deleted, despite the delightful work that I put into Jutsu.) -- Hoary 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, my Japanese is sketchy at best so I'll trust your opinion that it's a suffix. Suffixes obviously belong in Wiktionary, too (see here for an example). --Targeman 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can the article be saved by adding a discussion of the word's subject? Bradford44 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The word's subject? What do you mean? --Targeman 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What it means for a particular activity to be a "practical art" within the meaning of jutsu, as opposed to an "art" as in gei (芸), or a "way" as in dō (道). Bradford44 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but in that case you'll have to decide whether you want an article on an aspect of Japanese culture or about Japanese morphology. As it is now, it's a pure dicdef. --Targeman 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per nom and Finell. This violates WP:NOT. VanTucky  (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notredirect as if someone looking for the jitsu foundation or similar searches then they will get a manga article, deleting allows the search to show the options. Also if deleted trans-wiki it.--Nate1481(t/c) 09:16, 15 August 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.