Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohara


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Kohara

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found no significant coverage for this goddess of tuna. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

*Delete Striking-see below. This article must have been under some kind of divine protection for the last ten years. One sentence, no references, and no improvements in a decade.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A book published in 1992 (9 years before Wikipedia) called "Pacific Mythology: An Encyclopedia of Myth and Legend" verifies that Kohara is a tuna deity.  That is the source of the protection.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at that, but it is only one sentence among other one sentence deities. SL93 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Referenced stubs are good, a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover deities of all established regious traditions, and I believe that there is a reasonable presumption that offline sources exist, or sources in one or more Polynesian languages.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a referenced stub yet. It's a sentence. I think it's a bad precedent to assume that sources must exist. Sorry to repeat myself, but this "article" has been up since 2002. To paraphrase Marsellus Wallace, If it was gonna make it, it would've made it by now.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep once Cullen328 adds a citation to the article. Deities of real religions deserve coverage if we can establish that they really are/were considered deities.  It's one thing to presume sources and a completely different thing actually to refer to them by title.  Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article a bit and added four sources. I concede that each is a brief mention.  Two, though, are from authors notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies, for what that's worth, and I think it is worth a little. Taken together, I think that these four references establish the notability of Kohara, the suitability of the current stub, and the potential for expansion of the article when someone more knowledgeable about Polynesian mythology comes along.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely keep now. If you'd been able to present just the one source, I'd still say keep, but the three extra sources make it even clearer.  Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment withdrawing delete in light of improvements. Still not convinced that we have evidence of significant coverage, but deserves a chance. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2012 (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.