Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobako


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kobako

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep Though this stub needs expanding, the topic is notable. See Kogo and Kobako as 'Objets de Vitrine' in Europe during the Second Half of the 19th Century in Art of Asia, 2006 and the book A sprinkling of gold: the lacquer box collection of Elaine Ehrenkranz published by the Newark Museum in 1983.  Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To my opinion notability should be shown in the article itself. Now it looks like a common tupperware plastic box... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Of course the article should be expanded, but that's what we do with stubs about notable topics. We expand them and reference them, or tag them for improvement.  We don't delete short articles about notable topics.  I suggest that you read WP:BEFORE.  Although those procedures are not mandatory, I think they are very wise, and save time by minimizing this sort of discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is the duty of the author to make clear that a subject is notable. It is not up to the new page patroller to start searching if a subject is possible notable.
 * But by now the article is good enough so the discussion about the article van be closed.Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article and added six references. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree completely with Cullen. I’m mystified why anyone would even think of deleting this article while so many currently on Wikipedia cry out for deletion!  Right church here, wrong pew!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article now has ten references, and I've explained three related alternate meanings derived from the original concept Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Request for closure and keep Article impoved to proper, meaningful article. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 09:01, 16 June 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.