Talk:Sanpaku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sanpaku is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

This article was nominated for deletion on 03-02-2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

why does this have to be deleted? why can't it be a wictionary entry? it is accurate to the best of my knowledge, and referenced. why is everyone so militant about deleting topics that aren't instantly 5 pages in length?Lesotho 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. You may add it to Wiktionary if you wish. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. What is the threshold for article status or stub status? Why cannot a self-contained, referenced, reasonable entry exist independently? I still don't understand the motivation for deletionLesotho

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I know you're trying to be witty, but you just undermined your own argument. The main criterion for status on wikipedia (aside from the other 5 pillars, to which this article conforms), appears to be notability.

Quoting Wikipedia:Notability:

"One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."

this article already references one external source, and without too much difficulty, one can transparently and decisively establish the notability of this topic.

there is already one book referenced in the original article. http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Sanpaku-George-Oshawa/dp/0821601644

here is another book not listed in the original article: http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-All-Sanpaku-Kensington/dp/0806507284

and a notable international film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0260160/

for heaven's sake, it has even been cited in a medical journal: http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/22/6/372.pdf

honestly, i don't care about this topic, but i think you are being a militant expurgator...there are no specific quantitative guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability, so how many books, films, and journals would it take to satisfy your personal notability criterion?

That was a very perfunctory search which turned up all of the references I have cited above. If you want, I can go into Medline tomorrow and really download a lot of references in medical journals.

I turned to wikipedia for information because I came across the term in a medical context. I am Very Glad that this article existed. I hope that it continues to exist.

What is the issue here? I'm honestly confused...Lesotho 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, really. WP:N states that a topic should be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third party, published sources. The medical journal doesn't speak of "sanpaku" - it speaks of the book "You are all Sanpaku". Which, by the way, IS included in the article. The two books you refer to are the very same books. And, finally, even if you could consider a film a reliable source, the film you refer to is NOT notable: 38 imdb votes tells me I don't even have to google for it. I strongly doubt there are any actually credible references for this - but if you can put some up, then sure. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

Unfortunately, the strictures of my job prevent me from being an eminent doyen of wikipedia as you clearly are. Therefore, I will not enter into a "debate of the deaf" with you. I would like to point out that, according to Wikipedia, notability is not subjective.

Here is a list of 9 published books outside of the original source that cite this term. If this does not meet your criteria, then I would point you toward the Wikipedia:Ownership of Articles page.

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=sanpaku&btnG=Search+Books

Please note that one of the cited sources are Congressional transcripts. These are clearly independent and non-trivial sources.

I await your enthusiastic response.

I'm still not entirely convinced, although you make a good case. I still believe it would do better as a wiktionary entry... but I will not push the case any further. (Not even to AfD.) I'll just leave it here and hope someone else will come and deal with it. ;)

Even if this is real, and is notable (though I doubt it), the article appears to be original research at best. I propose an AfD. DWaterson 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there,

I'm not certain what you mean by "real" in this context. Moreover, your personal "doubts" are not material reasons for suggesting AfD. Please provide some suitable objection outside of your own, subjective viewpoints. I have certainly provided objective references. Please backup your viewpoint adequately, or remove the AfD. If you do not, I will.Lesotho 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)