Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoko (doll)

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. Mergers can continue to be discussed.  Sandstein  18:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoko (doll)

Hoko (doll) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Copied from Talk:Hoko (doll)#Bogus)

I cannot find anything in Japanese about this supposed doll. The spelling wikt:歩子 does exist in Japanese, but only as a female given name, most commonly read as Ayuko. The reading hoko also exists in Japanese, but only for the spelling wikt:矛, which means spear, halberd. The corresponding Japanese article for the reading at ja:ほこ does not list 歩子, and the article for the spelling at ja:歩子 does not exist. I cannot find this term in any Japanese dictionary; see also http://www.weblio.jp/content/歩子 for the spelling (no entry exists), http://www.weblio.jp/content/ほこ for the reading (no 歩子 anywhere on that page). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot find any evidence either. It is up to the OP to provide some hints as to where this came from. Move any useful content into Japanese traditional dolls Imaginatorium (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is obviously a mistake, since it should be 這子 (ほうこ) or Hōko. That term and doll in fact exists: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. In English: [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. I can't judge yet whether this is enough to create a separate article, but it is definitely not bogus. Michitaro (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have corrected the kanji in the article since that mistake should not be allowed to remain even as the article is subject to an AfD review. Michitaro (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Michitaro. I was not familiar with this custom, and with both the anon's reading and spelling incorrect, I didn't find anything relevant. Now that I have something to go on, I note by way of comparison that the JA Wikipedia does not have a separate article at ja:這子, and that it only appears in eleven other articles when searching for the string, of which three appear to be in titles listed as article references. After reading around a bit, I'm not sure if this passes muster for notability purposes; I defer to others' judgment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the JA Wiki has it or not is one issue to consider, but in the end, each wiki makes up its own mind. I would need to research it some more to see if I think it deserves its own article, but my initial reaction is that an article combining amagatsu (天児) and hōko makes the most sense if there is to be an article. Michitaro (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing sufficient evidence that we have enough reliably sourced information to demonstrate notability or justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Hōko (doll) I have to completely disagree with DAJF. Not only did Michitaro provide excellent information, but my own searches have turned up more. I'm going to expand the article today. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I found this article on JSTOR, but I don't have full access. Hoko dolls are discussed on several pages of the article. [11] Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to JSTOR and unfortunately that article is discussing another kind of hoko, a kind of float used in the Gion Festival. Michitaro (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. Thanks for looking Michitaro. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If not left as individual articles, it might be less awkward to expand Japanese traditional dolls rather than to try to combine them under a forced name given that they are linked in one period but separate later (and both hōko and amagatsu should appear there regardless). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (very much so). I think the desperate desire to preserve any entry which is not completely wrong leads to huge numbers of really scrappy and disconnected not-really-articles. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and "Hoko (doll)", even corrected to "Hōko (doll)" is not a reader-friendly title in an English language work. I looked at Japanese traditional dolls, and though this really isn't my subject, I think the first sentence is "all wrong". Japanese dolls are known by all sorts of names (as the article shows), and 人形 means "doll" or "figurine", not "human shape". I can't really see that writing the Japanese generic term for "doll" is even necessary or helpful. Whereas obscure words like dogū might benefit not only from consistent romanisation but also a kanji "reverse gloss". Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2015 (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.