Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni in popular culture


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oni in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common past a reference of greater or lesser triviality to these creature. Tells us nothign about the creatures, the fiction from which the reference is drawn, their relation to each other or the real world. Oppose merging the trivia into any other article. Otto4711 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, mixed original research and trivia. --Eyrian 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit weakly. Yes, this needs a more analytic treatment.  References should be sought (and for those who read the relevant language, might easily be found) for interesting and valuable assertions in the article, like the assertion that oni figure in the Japanese version of hide and seek.  Most of the entries here are quite easily verified just by looking; the claim that they are original research is simply wrong. Because oni figure quite prominently in many well known entertainments, and most English speakers like myself are first exposed to the concept through them, outright deletion of this data would leave a large gap in our coverage.  In the worst case scenario, move to a subpage of the talk page for discussion of which appearances are considered worthy of mention. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Somewhere in this list there is an encyclopedia article trying to get out.  Prune the right parts, expand the right parts, and it will appear.  It shouldn't be merged to Oni, as it is discussing something different: how Oni are portrayed in modern popular media. JulesH 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite or categorize. per Otto's reasons.  In regards to what else has been said, I really do not see how the article discusses anything, really.  If there is research out there talking about the Oni in popular culture, find it and cite it.  Otherwise, this really is just a heap of trivia. CaveatLectorTalk 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete another list of pure trivia (WP:5).  USERFY if anyone wants to save it and work on it.  Corpx 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite--trim some, and expand the parts worth keeping. Exactly what part of NOT DIR is thought to apply. works on these same theme are tightly connected. WP:NOT has no specific mention of articles such as these. DGG (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Making references to oni does not make work of fiction tightly connected. Jay32183 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain the tight connection between, to choose two examples off the list, A series of the cartoon series Jackie Chan Adventures involves finding nine oni masks, each containing a powerful Demon General with power over his own deadly tribe of Shadowkahn (Shadow Warriors). and Japanese historical fantasy light novel Utsunomiko. the central characters who have ESP are called Oni. WP:NOT makes no specific mention of List of things that Popes have expelled into handkerchiefs either but presumably such an article would not withstand scrutiny... Otto4711 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed that not all the examples are important. I can;'t judge these two--if Utsunomiko is important, then the fact that the central characters are oni is important. It is easy to invent ridiculous imaginary examples. That doesn't prove anything about articles that are not patently ridiculous--all it proves is that it is possible to write a bad article.   DGG (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you take any two items from the list, there is no tight connection. Trimming it down does not make it comply with WP:NOT. The idea behind WP:NOT is that you shouldn't talk about unrelated things as if they're related. Jay32183 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Total trivia fork, worthless. Biggspowd 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivia. -- Hoary 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The most notable examples could be mentioned in a small section of the Oni (folklore) article. It isn't large and there don't appear to be many significant references here anyway. Magiclite 07:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic trivia. IPSOS (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2007 (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.