Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nekonoshoben


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nekonoshoben

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a hoax originating in the "chefknives" reddit community. "Neko no shoben" means cat urine. On 2020-02-12 06:44, reddit user NekoNoShoben was created and made one comment in r/chefknives two minutes later. On the same day at 13:43, reddit user NekoNoNyo was created and made their first comment, also in r/chefknives twelve minutes later. At 14:22, in a thread on r/chefknives about patinas, NekoNoNyo invited NekoNoShoben to explain the techique, which they did. At 19:29, this article was created and at 20:35 it was posted on r/chefknifememes inviting users to contribute. On 2020-02-14, TRPV4 registered on Wikipedia to make a few edits to this article. On 2020-09-26 I proposed deletion as a hoax via WP:PROD. On 2020-10-18 Lichessacc2, the original creator of the page requested an undeletion. Benjamin Schwarz (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment IMO, this is where Wikipedia's verifiability, notability etc. requirements fall down: an editor can create an article on pretty much anything they want, and as long as they quote only off-line sources — the more obscure the better — it becomes virtually impossible to disprove them. Sure, if you have the time and the inclination to visit a few major reference libraries you might be able get somewhere, but who is going to do that, especially within the week or so that an AfD stays open? And even then, it would be just one editor's say-so. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't prove beyond doubt that this is a hoax, but balance of probabilities does suggest that. Conversely, I also can't verify the offline sources, and hence for me this fails WP:V. (And please, don't anyone point out that offline sources are also acceptable — I know that full well; I'm saying that I cannot verify this.) For the same reason, it also could fail WP:OR (note that much of the article contents are unsupported by citations, so there's no knowing where they came from), and possibly other things as well. (Further factors suggesting this may be dodgy: the article has no incoming or inter-language links, so it really is a lone orphan. Odd, that. Oh, I forget — it's a very 'secretive' method, right.) Now, if I could find even one reliable online source to corroborate at least some of this, I might err on the side of keeping it, but as I can't, I think the safe and sensible option is to delete. I for one would rather miss out on ten articles on genuine, verifiable topics, than include even one on a hoax. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked the first source cited and could find no reference to this technique. The page cited is about forging steel swords, and has no relation with anything said about the article. While I don't have access to the second source, looking at the Amazon listing & reviews shows it's about knife sharpening, and none of the reviews mention this technique. Jumpytoo Talk 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a WP:HOAX created by a WP:SPA. Cat urine has a normal ph of 6-6.5, it’s no more acidic than milk. How can you read “traditional methods of stabilization include immersion into watermelon” and think that this is real? SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as evident hoax. I also have a copy of the first source; as Jumpytoo said, there's nothing on p. 145 or in the rest of the book about this. This concept is already hard-to-believe on its face, and given the evidence provided in the nom I find it hard to believe this is anything but a hoax. — Goszei (talk)  03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can't say I'm happy this was undeleted, although I also suspect any policy that would prevent its undeletion would catch too many false positives. It's a relatively sophisticated hoax, excluding the part where it was bragged about on a meme subreddit. Vaticidalprophet 03:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW. To be honest I'd like to keep it because it's hilarious, but we really can't make exceptions to the no hoax rule. Tercer (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, a "good" WP:HOAX created by a WP:SPA CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2021 (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.