Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazoku


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mazoku

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notability (see talk page discussion). Recommend merging of specific sections pertaining to Slayers and YuYu Hakusho into those two articles or their satellites. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, but move non-fictional part to wiktionary apart from the hardly sourcable fictional usage, the rest of the article is only a dictionary entry. I see no point in keeping the article since wikipedia is not for dictionary terms.  Or redirect to Slayers just in case someone recreate the article.(I'd say the Slayers entry have more usage) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  09:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sounds good. Move to wikt:魔族, and perhaps wikt:まぞく and/or wikt:mazoku though those are probably peripheral. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a very common term in Japanese fantasy writing -- and games. It might be a challenge to source, but I don't think the term is inherently less notable than 'orc' or the like. I'd prefer to see the fictional OR stuff stripped out, and the historical notes tagged for citations, see if it's possible to find some. Doceirias (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply The problem here is if the term itself have a lot of usage in English. I am sure that you can source a lot of Japanese sources, but a lot of the notable and/or significant ones will have their own original English term or translation.(For example, if a Japanese version translated Elf to Mazoku, and it is obviously not coverable by this article.)  The term is not inherently less notable than orc, but if it is just going to be a dictionary term, leave it for wiktionary.  I don't know if it is possible or not, but just redirect the page to wiktionary if need be. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is about the CONCEPT of Mazoku, not the DEFINITION of Mazoku. Therefore Japanese sources should also make it notable. VDZ (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have moved the Slayers content to List of Slayers characters in case anyone wants to fix and retool the page to be of more benefit.Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Demons/Mazoku are very common in many series. Some notable series even call them that.  Listing briefly notable series that have them, with a short description of what they are in that series, would be great.  We could have List of notable fiction that features Mazoku if the list ever got too long... Hmm... this is an EXTREMELY common thing though.  Isn't there a list somewhere listing things commonly found in Japanese Anime and Manga?  I think showing how many historical/religious documents in Japan talk about them, or feature them in stories, is important to understand things.  Isn't this part of Shinto religion, they having Mazoku/demons/spirits/whatever in it?   D r e a m Focus  03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a part of Shinto. It's simply a Japanese term that was invented to translate concepts from other cultures. Ironically, when Japanese works using this word in a fictional context are translated to English, since the word was no longer being used as a reference to any particular real-life concept, it was just romanized and used as-is. So this word has basically never had any direct usage outside of fiction anyway. At least, that's what I gathered from the Japanese article. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. There is nothing to merge, the entire article is unsourced, pure, uncut original research.  JBsupreme (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think there's probably enough information on the subject in Japanese sources. We need someone who can read Japanese to establish notability for this. VDZ (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've written up a direct translation of ja:魔族, the corresponding Japanese article, here. Feel free to merge bits of into the article. I'd just replace the whole thing, but conflict of interest and all that. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason your translation does not attribute any reliable sources? I appreciate the hard work you have done, but we still should not be substituting one problem for another.  JBsupreme (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Source is Wikipedia. VDZ (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason there are no references is that I directly translated ja:魔族, and that article has no references either. Perhaps that article needs to be AfD'd as well, but that's for a different discussion. User:Mythsearcher is correct - I am not trying to cite ja:魔族 as a source, but rather am just presenting a translation of it in order to assist restructuring and redevelopment of mazoku. I do not pretend to be providing references or proving notability in any way. In fact, I don't believe this topic is notable, but rather that it is a WP:DICDEF. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough, thank you flamingspinach. JBsupreme (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not being harsh here, if one look into the matter, I was the one writting all those unrefed stuff in this particular article to begin with, from the original article where it only mentioned the two fictional entries. I am essentially proposing to ditch most of my own work to begin with.  The only problem right now is that I am sure there will not be sufficient sources in English nor Japanese to support the inclusion of this article.  Most of the source will be dictionary entries and thus I proposed moving this to wiktionary, which is the dictionary equivalent of wikipedia. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to Wiktionary per above or Keep. No use in dragging this AfD on for another week. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2010 (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.