Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jutsu

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jutsu

[edit]
Jutsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article contains only impermissible content, and I do not believe it can be rehabilitated. It purports to be a disambiguation page, but jutsu is not a "term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article", nor a term that could appropriately be the title of any of the articles listed, contrary to WP:DAB. Further, the list of articles violates WP:DAB#Lists, because the listed articles are merely terms which include the disambiguation term. If the contents of the list are removed, the article will consist solely of a dictionary definition, in violation of WP:NOT#DICT. Finally, only the English dubbed version of the tv show Naruto uses the term "jutsu" as a noun or stand-alone term; in real life it is usually only used as a suffix in other words. Because it means "practical art" (or something like that), an article could be written about the "Practical arts of Japan", but, 1. that might be too broad (lots of things unrelated to martial arts also use the suffix jutsu); 2. members of such a class should probably each have their own article; and 3. at any rate such an article should not be titled "Jutsu", but should have an English title, such as "Practical arts of Japan", per WP:Use English. I recommend deletion, redirect to Jutsu (Naruto), or moving "Jutsu (Naruto)" to here. Bradford44 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Dicdef/bad disambiguation and to link all possibly relevant articles would be a pain when the search will term them up if this is deleted. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article has been significanly re-written to something useful needs some tidying but could be useful, might still fall under dicdef in which case trans-wiki would be appropriate as good info --Nate1481( t/c) 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jutsu (Naruto) as the only valid claim to the word as a stand-alone use. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) CHanged, see below.[reply]
  • Redirect to the Naruto article per Nihonjoe. All of the other things here would only belong in a "see also" section, and that's not necessary when there's nothing to disambiguate for the main term. The Naruto article should also migrate to the plain title for the same reason, but that can be done through Wikipedia:Requested moves. I note that the nominator actually tried to redirect the page before, but got reverted. Whatever happens, this should not continue to be a dab page. Dekimasuよ! 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or else delete. Don't redirect to this article on "Naruto", at least until the latter is rewritten in order not to mislead. For here's an extract from the latter: Generally speaking, jutsu are divided into three categories: genjutsu, ninjutsu, and taijutsu (my emphasis). This is easily readable as explaining, well, "jutsu in general". If the article about some aspect of "Naruto" unambiguously limits itself to that fantasy world, fine; if it limits itself to a fantasy world but doesn't bother to keep reminding the reader of this, fine; but as long as it's readable as describing the real world it's a crap destination of a redirect for a morpheme that's widely used to refer to activities in the real world. ¶ Should Japanese words and interjections get articles in en:WP? In general, I don't think they should; but I'm puzzled by the way in which Japanese terms from/for "popular culture" are written up, while this admittedly weedy effort on a morpheme of wider use is redirected to an article on one particular manga/anime. ¶ Meanwhile, WP does have articles on plenty of other suffixes: I'm too sleepy/lazy to see how WP defines "dicdef", but these are hardly dictionary definitions in the usual sense, if only because most [normal] dictionaries don't linger over suffixes. -- Hoary 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (withdraw nomination), now that it has been appropriately rewritten. At the time I nominated the article, I was not aware that there were "suffix" articles. Although I might support a wholesale deletion of all such articles, as they are dangerously close to being pure dicdef's, in this case, I think that what has now been written is suitably encyclopedic. Also, this presents an opportunity to write about the practical and philosophical meanings of jutsu as related to martial arts, and briefly, the difference with and change to dō. Bradford44 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if citations to evidence of notability are added; otherwise, delete per WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argh. You've now probably doomed the article to survival, because people are going to dig up some mumbo jumbo about the deep, metaphysical (?) significance of jutsu as opposed to dō (or at least vice versa). I find this kind of notability deeply soporific. Look, this is an innocent morpheme that exhibits fascinating metamorphoses uh I mean allomorphy thanks to the wonder of gemination. (Just don't tell this chap.) -- Hoary 23:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite. It now fits in with other "suffixes" and is acceptable as an article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE (renew nomination): Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is solely about a Japanese word (not about the subject that the word denotes), transliterated into English. There is already an entry for the word in the Japanese Wictionary, which is where this material should be treated. If it were an English word, the material would be appropriate for en:Wictionary, but not Wikipedia (English or Japanese). Finell (Talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree with you about WP not being a dictionary, Fine11. But where did you get the notion that jutsu is a word? Other perhaps than in some quaint mistranslation of some manga, it's no more a word than -logy or -hood is. (Yes, I tend to think that the whole lot should be deleted, despite the delightful work that I put into Jutsu.) -- Hoary 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my Japanese is sketchy at best so I'll trust your opinion that it's a suffix. Suffixes obviously belong in Wiktionary, too (see here for an example). --Targeman 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can the article be saved by adding a discussion of the word's subject? Bradford44 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word's subject? What do you mean? --Targeman 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What it means for a particular activity to be a "practical art" within the meaning of jutsu, as opposed to an "art" as in gei (芸), or a "way" as in dō (道). Bradford44 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but in that case you'll have to decide whether you want an article on an aspect of Japanese culture or about Japanese morphology. As it is now, it's a pure dicdef. --Targeman 16:55, 14 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jutsu&oldid=1070597605"