Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kusshii

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. The book cited in the article is not a RS for the existence of the beast, but it is for the existence of the meme, and enough else has been found, eg mention in guidebooks. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kusshii

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

This article has been listed as lacking any citations for over two years, and it contains no evidence of notability. I can find no evidence of notability in a brief google search. The material seems likely to constitute non-notable original research. Locke9k (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is an unreferenced article, yes, (since I copied a brief summary of the Japanese Wikipedia article when I created it, and the Japanese Wiki article is also unreferenced) and perhaps parts of it added by others constitute "original research". But there's no question that this passes notability criteria and the article should be kept. Most Japanese people I know have heard of Kusshii. In Japan it's certainly no less notable than the Wendigo. Did you do your "brief Google search" in English or Japanese? クッシー results in 55000 hits. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 08:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting google hits establishes nothing. These could all be wikipedia mirrors, self published sources, and other unreliable sources. What are needed are quality reliable sources such as mainstream news or scholarly articles directly addressing the subject. Unless those kinds of references can be specifically cited, the article is probably not notable. Locke9k (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about Kussie in any comprehensive English travel guide of Japan. For example. As they say there, the legend is well-known and it's one of the reasons the lake is famous. Official tourism webpage, Brief mention on NHK (NHK). A highway named after the creature. It was also apparently discussed in Fate 27(4) from 1974, which is about as "scholarly" as I think you're going to get for most cryptozoology bullshit. Although I think that with proper references this article has the potential to expand quite a bit and it's worthy of an article in its own right, I'm willing to accept delete with redirect to Lake Kussharo if a Kussie section is added there. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references establish notability. Self published promotional material by the lake's tourism board cannot establish notability; its not a reliable independent source. Incidental mentions don't establish notability. Nor does a road being named after it, especially if the road itself is not notable. The article listed is certainly not from a reliable source. Unless several substantive mentions in true reliable sources can be found, I think that a delete is far more appropriate than a redirect. Locke9k (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, in what world is "being mentioned in pretty much every foreign-language tourist guide as a considerable tourist draw for a major Japanese lake" not worthy of being a redirect? Bueller 007 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how it is mentioned. In order to establish notability, there has to be substantive discussion of it. A passing mention does not establish notability, and this is exactly the sort of coverage that many 'local interest' things link this receive in travel guides. If someone can provide an actual reference to a specific travel guide that provides substantive coverage, that could help in establishing notability. Presently no such actual substantive reference has been provided. Locke9k (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research unless any evidence of notability can be provided. --DAJF (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can find some coverage in reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Otherwise, a merge to Lake Kussharo would also work. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those is a cryptozoological book, and is thus neither reliable nor independent as is required by the general notability guideline. The third does not contain significant coverage, also as required by the WP:GNG; its just a couple of lines mentioning a local interest story. The second source is not accessible and so we cannot assess how significant the coverage is. The fourth is in japanese (I assume), so some translation would be helpful in assessing whether coverage is significant. I'll note from WP:Fringe theories that "Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." Part of the goal of the notability requirement is that there are enough mainstream sources to permit balanced coverage. Brief local interest mentions of a fringe theory and writings within that fringe theory's own literature can thus not establish notability, and I believe that that is exactly what the above links represent. Locke9k (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extension request: Can an admin extend this discussion to allow for more full debate? Locke9k (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cryptozoological book is a RS for establishing the notability of topics in cryptozoology. It seems from the excerpt a responsible compilation, and it lists what are clearly several sources in mainstream newspapers. The second source is from the Chicago Tribune, and is accessible online at hundreds of libraries and in print in some of them--there is no requirement that sources be free on the web--an indication from even the excerpt is that it is of substantial length, and the title is on the particular creature, not such creatures in general. To be covered in a Rough Guide indicates a considerable degree of notability . the 4th I cannot evaluate. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (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.