Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō - Wikipedia

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 keep and possibly merge. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjatō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unverified for a long time. Dispute over merging one into the other was unable to suggest even a correct name with factual references. Alan.ca 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it covers the same subject as evidenced by the unresolved merge proposal dating back to Jan/06:[reply]

Ninjaken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Weak keep - Those are the proper terms for those weapons, and it is unfortunate that no one has taken the time to source them. Sources are available from weaponsmiths online, as well as a discussion of their use and history. That being said, my keep is "weak" because it really should be verified, and it can be recreated if someone has the motivation to re-create it with source material at some point in the future. ◄Zahakiel► 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into a Shinobigatana article: On the grounds of that's where the Japanese article is located at. It's odd that Ninjaken would be called the "more correct term" when it's not mentioned in the Japanese article (nor is a redirect to it) and Ninjato is is.--SeizureDog 20:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Japanese article is completely unverifiable as well? If these two survive the AfD I can't imagine what qualifies. Alan.ca 04:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TomorrowTime 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SeizureDog. There is a lot of talk on the subject, and a lot of it is heated and decisevily non-encyclopedic discourse. Shinobigatana seems to be an apropriate neutral term under which both sides of the dispute could be united. Whether or not this is a historical weapon is besides the point - it seems notable enough in its modern (and most probably first ever) incarnation. TomorrowTime 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Merge, cleanup, and source. If anything, these show up in popular culture enough. --UsaSatsui 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For those suggesting merge, please clarify which article should be merged into which. The merge proposal has been outstanding for over 12 months and is listed as part of WP:BACK. If people want to keep one or both of these articles it would be nice if someone could find a source of factual information. At this point the articles seem to be unverifiable Alan.ca 03:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zahakiel. The article was tagged as unverified only a month ago, and no significant editing has taken place. This doesn't mean the material is unverifiable, just that it isn't done yet. But, articles don't have to be perfect. Mangojuice^talk 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, these two articles have a pretty colorful history. One of them was created solely to serve as a depository for information about possible historical non-existance of the weapon, information that had regularly been deleted from the other article. I have personaly posted requests on both project:Japan and project:Military history talk pages for someone knowledgable to look into the articles and merge them appropriately, and still nobody could verify the data. Frankly, my hopes of there ever being a presentable article on this blade are not very high, and I don't think we can expect any verifiable information very soon. My point is, there is some editors working on this article that stubbornly deny any data that doesn't fit into their understanding of the subject matter, verifiable or not, and there don't seem to be any editors interested/knowledgable enough in either of the parent projects to clean up the mess. Hence my vote higher in the discussion - merge both into an article with a neutral name, loose all the unverifiable information (one encyclopedic stub-level article would be better to have than these two) and keep a stern eye on the newly formed article. TomorrowTime 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment The closest to a reliable source that I could find on the net for eithre spelling was this. - Peregrine Fisher 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.