Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaitō


 * 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. The "keep" opinions by Dream Focus does not address the problems mentioned in the nomination, and those of Tokek also do not provide sources beyond those sufficient to establish a dictionary definition. This closure does not preclude a redirect to, or a mention in, the article gentleman thief.  Sandstein  07:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaitō

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing more then a Dictionary definition. The examples are based on original research or personal opinion. Content is unverified against reliable sources —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It's an interesting set of links, but I'm not seeing any evidence that a kaito differs in any way from a cat burglar. --Gwern (contribs) 14:34 19 September 2009 (GMT)
 * Of course the main problem is, how do you define a "phantom thief" and what distinguishes them from "cat burgers" or "gentleman thieves" or other fictional thieves? The definition the article gives is extremely vague, and the list of "examples" offers no commonality either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Searching is not helped by the fact that Kaitō is a common family name. However, I read lo these distant years ago a discussion of kaitō as a distinctly Japanese treatment of the gentleman thief character type. Will take a while to track this down, I suspect (I'm not even sure whether it was in a book or magazine). I suspect it would be Very Good Idea to get someone familiar with 20th century Japanese literature, especially mysteries, involved. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is a Japanese take on gentleman thief, then it should probably be merged/redirected there. However, there are just too many problems with both the given definition and the list. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Quasirandom (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Rename to List of Kaitō in notable Japanese media.  D r e a m Focus  01:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of Kido? Without one, the entire list fails ever aspect of WP:SAL. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, there appears to be no actual clear definition of kaitō, but in either case, this is purely an attempt at making one, followed by a half dozen examples (some right per reason of they were called that in the work, some not so much). Clearly fails WP:NOT. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, where are you getting the conclusion that there's no clear definition? from the shoddy state of the article? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That and google...seems some think "phantom thief" something just "thief" etc. Is there a clear definition? Though even if there were, my view would still be the same. Its still a dicdef (or attempt there of) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - it seems to be bordering on OR and synthesis. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is largely not based on OR or personal opinion, as the characters are given the kaitō label in the stories themselves, not by the wiki editor. Yahoo! Japan Dictionary lists "kaitō" in its J-E dictionary as "phantom thief" and J dictionary  as well. Currently there is no redirect replacement for it that would make sense, since apparently this is uniquely Japanese. There has been some misunderstanding in this discussion that the term is not well defined, or usage of the term is problematic. That's not the case. Admittedly, currently not a very worthy article yet. Hopefully it will evolve beyond the realm of listcruft articles with time. —Tokek (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still nothing but a dictionary. Throwing in a few examples does not make it less so. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give real sources that define the genre and gives details about the genre's characteristics? Providing a translation of the term is not sufficient, nor a reason to keep the article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with what the article currently states, that kaitō is a stock character and not a genre. Not that I need to clarify, since I never claimed it should be treated mainly as a genre. —Tokek (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you agree with the article or not. Where are the reliable sources? —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinions of the editor do matter. Reliable sources help people determine notability, but you are still suppose to think for yourself, and form your own opinions.  Not a lot of searchable English news sources talk about manga at all, thus the reason so many manga articles for extremely notable and well read series end up getting deleted.  Because some believe we can't think for ourselves and decide what belongs, but instead must mindlessly follow a suggest guideline a small number of people came up with, and destroy anything someone in the mainstream media hasn't specifically commented on.  Perhaps searching the Japanese Wikipedia, for who these series listed refer to the character, would help.  Since manga is so popular in Japan, surely someone has published books on the common types of characters found in them.  You can look for that if you want. You can search whatever media is out there in Japan that reviews manga for that word, and also sites that sell it might list it in their summary of the products they sell.   D r e a m Focus  10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:V is not a fundamental policy that can be ignored. Neither can WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for that matter. Simply agreeing with a vague, unsourced definition doesn't make the definition any more legitimate. The article fails even that except in what the term translates to. And then it runs afoul of WP:NOT, which can't be ignored either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey! Look at this.  When searching through Wikipedia articles that use the word, I found its in the title of many notable manga series.   D r e a m Focus  10:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which proves what exactly? That the term is used in titles and character names? But no definitions or characteristics for the genre or character archetype are ever given. Also, articles on Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for other articles on Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia category for this. Category:Kaitō anime and manga I searched the Anime News Network to see how many times the word was used, and got plenty of results. One of the examples of the Kaito listed, Lupin, had an anime special about him with that word in the title!  Kaitō Lupin - 813 no Nazo (special)  So he was referred to as such.  The word is used quite often to refer to characters like this.  The article is clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, what exactly does this prove? All it proves is that the term is used in some titles or as character names. It still doesn't define the meaning of the term or give any details about the genre or the character archetype. And most of those article in Category:Kaitō anime and manga were placed there based on original research and personal opinions instead of based on reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:30, 1 October 2009 (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.