Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youkaimura


 * 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. Deizio talk 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Youkaimura
5,100 Google hits, NO Alexa rank. In no way notable. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't appear to be notable. Delete. Andre (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Yet another article about some random web site... -- The Great Llama   (speak to the Llama!) 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Changed to delete. You all convinced me. I wasn't aware of the Alexa ranking, or the reasons why websites are listed on wikipedia. I only know that I learned something interesting from reading the article, and others who are interested in the subject matter would also learn something, which I thought was enough to warrent an entry. MightyAtom 00:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not logic to keep. People are interested in Mario, should Tatanga get an article? If this site is give an article because people are interested in the subject matter, then that opens the floodgates to say that any site about youkais is notable because people are interested in the subject matter. People were interested in the article about Bizarre Uprising, a webcomic that used to have an article, but it failed its second AfD despite having around 300k Alexa Traffic Rank. That is not logic to keep, and it should not be given an article for the sole reason that a handful of people want an article on the subject - rather, it should not be given one because the cold hard facts say beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Alexa and Google are commonly used in factoring a site's notability on Wikipedia, and both paint a clear picture that it is not that big of a web site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

MER-C 03:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Argument was changed. MER-C 05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tatanga? Cruft is not a reason to delete, this is a fact htat is constantly stated. Cruft is an argument, just like the fact that this site does not warrant an article. Under your logic, Tatanga deserves an article, as do every single insignificant character in the Mario universe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete spamvertisement. Danny Lilithborne 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 03:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Yōkai and/or Obake. Just because something doesn't warrant its own article, doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned or briefly covered in Wikipedia. Carcharoth 09:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Inte.d 08:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 09:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB, any site with no alexa rank should be removed from the encyclopaedia.. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Even though wikipedia is not paper ans has plenty of space we need to put a lid on the addition of non-notable websites. Take a look at WP:WEB Localzuk(talk) 12:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think this article should be deleted. It's not a spamvertisement, it's actually quite the opposite.  It has extensive information about the flaws of this website and the controversy there.  The only reasons this article was even filed for deletion was because the website's creator didn't want the article posted because he didn't like what it was saying about it; he accused the article of being slanderous and a violation of his copyright, neither of which are valid claims.  Please do not delete this article.  Shikino 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason? That's funny, I seem to recall nominating it with the argument that it's not notable on the basis that it does not pass two of the biggest tests of notability. Additionally, you yourself admit that there is extensive coverage of the flaws of the site. But this is the only way any of the site's content is discussed, through the controversy section. This is most certainly not a case of NPOV; if it were, you would not be so focused on the criticism section (your focus giving power to the argument that you are using this to attack the site). If you were not biased as Hushicho says, then you would have added sections about the article's content. There can not be a controversy section before there is any actual content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it non-notable? With that article, I could say half of the articles on Wikipedia are non-notable.  This is a major debate in the online Japanese folklore community.  And the article is NPOV.  It does actually discuss the site's content.  Did you even read the article?  It even veers toward the positive side at the beginning, when discussing the site's history.  Plus, this isn't a question of negativity or positivity.  It's a question of fact.  Factuality, I think, should be the main question in a discussion of whether or not to delete the article.  The fact that the main question here is "notability" (who decides what's notable or not, by the way?) is unbelievable to me.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a celebrity magazine.  Of course, that's just my opinion.  Shikino 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's unbelievable to you that we draw the line about what should be? So basically, it doesn't matter that it has next to know notaiblity and thusly doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia, as long as it's factual? And the positivity of the article is a blurb compared to the controversy section, which is more or less the only content of the article and the only way content of the site is dicussed is discussing how it's controversial. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Yeah, I know. He only wants it removed because it tells the truth about his website, in a visible place where he can't overrule facts. Shikino 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)"


 * You did a good job showing that you are NPOV, since you clearly refer to what the criticism of the website says as the truth and fact. In fact, the fact that you clearly show dislike towards this site makes me question why you would even want it to have an article. In fact, you yourself was the one who created this article, and are the one who inserted any mention of controversy in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I never tried to hide that I wrote the majority (if not all) of the article. As for the criticism of the website, it is fact.  And it is fact that is easily proven and well-documented.  Saying that a fact is a fact doesn't mean I'm not NPOV.  I've never condemned the website or even said anything slightly disparaging about it.  On the contrary, I've repeatedly stated my opinions concerning its right to exist.  I'm a bit mystified that this argument has anything to do with NPOV.  I thought (although I admit I could be wrong) that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia that prided itself on things like completeness and factuality (although factuality is something that can be easily changed, I'd have thought that it would be valued by those who run it).  As for why I want the article, I believe the nonfactual aspect of this website should be known; this is why the article is notable, because Youkaimura is a major issue in the online aspect of Japanese folklore.  The "information" there is frequently presented as fact in places online where people might not be as immersed in Japanese folklore and can't tell what's real and what's made up.  As I've repeatedly said elsewhere, folklore is folklore.  It's an area of study, and is not anything similar to the genre of fantasy where "anything goes" is the rule of thumb.  The vital importance of factuality in the field of folklore studies, specifically Japanese folklore, is why I believe this article is both necessary and notable.  Personally, I think importance should trump popularity, which is why I think some random internet rating is irrelevant in this case.  Shikino 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So you created the article for the sake of putting up a criticism section? Odd, what you have stated contradicts this! So it would seem that you were lying. And you're right - since this article is not important, it should be deleted. Anyhow, one of the editors that has contributed to the criticism section is also a member of the forum sourced. As I see it, Youkaimura has never referred to itself as an academic resource. And from what I've seen, members of the cited forum have harrassed and threatened members of the Youkaimura forum, which - as you would guess it - invalidates them as a source, because they are naturally biased against the web site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Man, this is so ridiculous it's not even funny. I never lied about anything.  And please, if you're going to be making decisions on deleting an article, please bother to do some homework.  You said, "I see it, Youkaimura has never referred to itself as an academic resource."  Well, you're wrong.  The owner has repeatedly claimed this; in fact, he's gone as far as to say that he's the best source, and that all other academic sources on the subject are flawed and/or poorly researched.  A claim which is easily disproved if you bother to look into the subject at all.  And as for harrassing and threatening, this is another claim which you'd do well to put a minutia of research into before believing it.  The forum in question hasn't harrassed Youkaimura; on the contrary, it's the dictatorial owner of Youkaimura that's thrown most of the people on the forum in question out of Youkaimura simply for questioning the factuality of his content.  If anyone's the perpetrator of harrassment, it's the owner of Youkaimura.  Anyway, so, basically what you're saying is that Japanese folklore is unimportant.  As I've said that this article is important to Japanese folklore and you've said in reply that it's therefore unimportant, that's pretty much what you're saying.  Well, if Japanese folklore is unimportant, then anime is twice as unimportant.  Looks like I'll have my work cut out for me nominating some anime and video game articles for deletion.  This is such bullshit it's not even funny.  Shikino 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You know why I say it's unimportant? Well, why don't you go the extra mile and ask why I think the sky is blue? It is an undeniable fact that this website has no place on Wikipedia. It is not even covered by Alexa, and it has very few Google hits. You've stated that the only reason you want this article is to inform people that the site is incorrect. The sole reason you wish for this article to exist, as you have stated, is so that you can give a POV. If the website's content were correct, would you then want it deleted? - A Link to the Past
 * So you're hung up on the POV thing, when I keep telling you it's not a POV. It's fact.  Or, wait.  Maybe the difference between a true POV and pure, unbiased fact is that it's only "fact" if no one thinks it is!  That's you're logic.  To use your example, "the sky being blue" is fact.  But if I make a Wikipedia article about the sky, and say in this hypothetical article that the sky is blue, it automatically becomes POV, and thus worth deletion on those grounds (nevermind, for the moment, the issue of notability).  I restate what I've been saying all along: Folklore is folklore, there's no "anything goes" in folklore.  Folklore inaccuracies can easily be researched and disproved as NON FACT.  That doesn't mean there's POV involved, just because someone believes something that happens to be true, to be true.  On the issue of notability, I give you the message the IP "213.172.234.208" posted below.  To say this article is non-notable, given its notability within the field of Japanese folklore, is to say that Japanese folklore is non-notable.  I notice you keep dodging that issue.  If this article is to be deleted, I'd say you have to delete the entire Japanese mythology project in order to be consistent.  Shikino 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(talk) 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Shikino: It's not even ranked on Alexa, which is a typical notability measurement, and it has only 5,100 Google hits. See WP:WEB for notability guidelines. Andre (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete completely non notable  Funky Monkey   (talk)  21:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an opinion from a non-wikipedian enthusiast for Japanese folklore. While the point about non-notability may be completely valid, there is one thing most of you are failing to see. Internet sites in English centering on Japanese folklore are a very rare find. So, while in the larger scheme of things, this site might actually be non-notable and irrelevant, it is certainly not such through the optic of Japanese folklore research. Me, I had to find out the hard way that the site in question is at times slightly inacurate, and at times ridiculously flawed. And even if this might seem like a low blow, some of the wikipedians in the Japanese mythology group have had the same problem - see the talk page for kamaitachi, for instance.

So, eventhough my opinion doesn't count towards the ballot, I'd recomend to at least keep the article in it's original, short version - i.e. before the vandalism and the desperate attempts to remedy that turned into the article it is now. It could help a serious enthusiast like myself save some time in the future. 213.172.234.208 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? I always thought the "pedia" part of Wikipedia was for "encyclopedia".  Maybe I'm wrong.  I'm starting to doubt that initial interpretation.  So if Wikipedia isn't an "indiscriminate" collection of information, then what is it?  A collection of information judged relevant by those in charge?  Shikino 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A discriminate collection of information. The users, admins and non-admins, decide what's acceptable for Wikipedia. You were expecting that every single subject in the universe would get an article here? Please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At first I was just simply gonna put down my view and leave it at that. But you, sir, are starting to sound rude. I believe there was some rule or other about a certain level of civility here? I gave my view as to why I don't think this article should be considered "an indiscriminate addition to Wikipedia". I gave an example of how the website in discussion can be misleading even to people that, unlike me, are regular contributors in the Japanese Mythology Project. Do you seriously believe your response was anywhere near the level of my civil display of opinion? And please, don't think I am a sockpuppet or anything. I'm not. I am, as I said, a bystander, somebody with an interest in the subject matter, who noticed this discussion and felt compelled to add his two cents. After all, that's what Wikipedia is about, isn't it? People with a particular knowledge and insight sharing it with those without? 213.172.246.121 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Random passerby? Pretty random - your only activity on Wikipedia seems to be responding to this AfD. Regardless, Wikipedia is not about educating people about everything. We try to limit it to less than every possible article that could exist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2006 (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.