Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryona (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ryona
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Entirely original research with no references to reliable sources. Previously deleted back in 2007, and nothing seems to have changed since then to make this a notable concept. (I freely admit I have not even attempted to look for reliable sources for this - I have no wish to do so. It's up to those who want it kept to demonstrate they exist.) I have searched for reliable sources, and as far as I can tell none exist - unless entries on Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes count. Robofish (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources exist according to Google Books or Scholar. There is no "ryonani" either. -- deerstop. 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep' Weak keep good evidence why wp:before should be a requirement, if people are going to boast about ignoring it. The reason for it is that the default is keep, so if you want something deleted, you need to show why. With the possible exception of recently entered blps, the standard for deletion is unsourceable, and you need to actually show that. I consider the existence of the message board enough presumptive evidence that it would take a thorough failed search in the Japanese language to show otherwise  DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The search has failed. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * how to deal with things that are quite possibly sourceable, but in places where we can;t readily get to them, is a recurrent problem for which there is no good solution. I'm prepared to go by whatever indications we have,to avoid cultural bias; some people not unreasonably want firmer evidence. 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I enjoy doing these sorts of searches. In this case, the article is documenting a neologism, making it very hard to envision keeping the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  Procedural Keep : It's not our job to find sources; it's yours, as the nominator, to suggest why they probably don't exist. I freely admit that I haven't looked for reliable sources for this - I have no wish to do so.  It's up to those who want it deleted to demonstrate that they probably don't exist. Buddy431 (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Nominator has now appeared to have made a good faith search for sources allowing notability. As I previously said, I don't really care one way or another, so I'll not put much effort into this.  It appears that the term is actually used, but there are no sources immediately apparent that would establish notability. Buddy431 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, article is only documenting a neologism, thus failing that WP:Policy. There are no reliable sources I could find for either Ryona or that so much as define this term, and the interwiki link is a lie; it leads to the Japanese article ja:サディズム on Sadism.  Abductive  (reasoning) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Malkinann (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstain. --Malkinann (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary Seeing that there are no real references for the word my feeling is that it is not used in english that much, however if it is a real word, wiktionary seems like a good place to put it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sadism per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Japanese entry for Ryona redirects to their page on Sadism, but that page doesn't mention the term. Polarpanda (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary per Knowledgekid. The term exists but isn't notable, so an entry there is the best option. Alzarian16 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and unverifiable dicdef. Unless someone can site a reliable source—Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes are no reliable sources—this has no business on Wiktionary. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:48, 7 June 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.