Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyaji


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oyaji

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article has had problems with WP:NN and WP:OR for quite a long time. I also argue that it violates WP:NOTDIC to a fair degree, since it's mostly just a definition of a term. I'm having trouble discerning any sort of notability for it, or finding any decent sources about the subject. G-Flex (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR to the nth degree, and lacking for possible secondary or even primary sources. tgies (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not to the nth degree -- the first two paragraphs are pretty clean as far as original research, despite the [citation needed]. The term's readily verifiable in even limited dictionaries. It's after the dictionary and cultural associations, when it starts analyzing literatures, that things get dicey. I'd whack everything else and require rigorous citation for anything put back. As to whether the remaining is sufficient for an article, even as a stub, that depends on whether anyone can find a citation for something in the second paragraph -- which ought not to be too hard. Withholding final vote pending further findings on that front. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None being forthcoming (admittedly, I haven't had the time to do more than barely poke at this), delete without prejudice for recreation if reliable sources can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Stop searching in English.  Search in Japanese.  Oyaji is everywhere as an art/fetish genre. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't read Japanese, so I'm not a great judge of that. However, if there is good material out there that's verifiable and establishes notability and can be used to back up the information in the article, then they should be mentioned, because claiming that there are sources doesn't do much good if they aren't actually cited in the article text. If there are, then by all means, properly base the article on those sources and cite them, but if that's the case, I'm not sure why you haven't yet. In short, something doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion just because you say it does: Go out, prove it, and edit the article accordingly. G-Flex (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a particularly poor rationale. You've just proven that おやじ is a Japanese word that exists and is somewhat common. Not all Japanese words that exist and are somewhat common warrant a Wikipedia article. A certain quantity of foreign-language Google hits for the word that is the topic of this article do not prove the topic's notability and are irrelevant to the problem of the article's verifiability. If anything, the burden of proof is upon you to comb through these Google hits and find viable sources among them, and reference them in the article. tgies (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, as a former PRODder of this article. Even supposing this topic were notable, its current contents are entirely OR and more importantly are irrelevant cruft. Compare with ja:親父, which is frankly more likely to be written by people who actually use the word - that article focuses on the perception of fathers in Japanese society, and the evolution of the word and in what contexts it could be used over the years, and what connotations it had during different eras. This article talks about "the rustic appeal of Sean Connery". Honestly, this is ridiculous. Even if "Oyaji" is notable in a particular Japanese sociological context, "Oyaji" as "an art/fetish genre", as Gilgamesh puts it, is totally non-notable. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article does seem rather poorly written... Whether or not this article is deleted, perhaps at a later date it can be rewritten using the Japanese Wikipedia article as a basis. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think a preponderance of Japanese web pages containing the word - or even dedicated to discusion of - おやじ support the claims of this article any more than English web pages talking about Dad would. It's a common word, but its notability is not really distinct from the concept of Father. That fathers hold a somewhat different position in Japanese versus other societies does not make this a particularly useful article. Cnilep (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dictionary definition puffed up with way too much original research. --DAJF (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely original research, unless references to reliable sources can be provided. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary what can be transwikied, then delete. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:55, 26 April 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.