Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gōzoku

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gōzoku

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

Delete. Attempting to introduce term into English which is not common. This has nearly an exact corollary in English (or other European) history. That of liege lord. (Note that lack of references not an issue for this nomination except one that defines it as having entered the English language!). Student7 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather than being "an attempt to introduce term into English", this is a term long used by scholars writing in English about Japanese, and sometimes Chinese, history, and here are a few examples:
The ancient samurai
Above the Clouds: Status Culture of the Modern Japanese Nobility
Tenno seiji - Japan studies: Studies in Japanese history and civilization
Heavenly warriors: the evolution of Japan's military, 500-1300
A history of Japan, Volume 3
Japan, sport and society: tradition and change in a globalizing world
A history of law in Japan until 1868
State and society in early medieval China

The topic is notable in English language scholarly usage, and the article should be kept and improved rather than being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, it could be described for each article where absolutely required. Not sure it is needed at all. Japanese are "much closer" to their medieval period than Europeans and seem to feel that all terms regarding it are unique to Japan, when many, if not most, are not unique, but in all medieval society. A few have already entered English and these are fine to use. English (not unlike Japanese) is a "language sponge." English likes new words. But it is not up to Wikipedia to introduce them. They must be in the language already. Demonstrating that it is in scholarly books, does not, for this purpose, show that it is part of the English language. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a historically and academically significant term, used in most books discussing the Kofun period onward, earlier than medieval history. More information can be translated from ja:豪族, which introduces some of the earliest Japanese clans.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe it is significant Robjp21019 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The question is not "is the material under Gozuku significant?" The question is: "Is gozuku commonly used as a term in English, having been ported from the Japanese?" A secondary question is: "Will the policy regarding the use of commonly used terms in English" be enforced or not? Student7 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a notable topic specifically in the Japanese context. Needs expanding, like all stubs. As to the title, if there is no established "English" term for this (specifically Japanese) subject, then we have no choice but to use the Japanese term (and it appears from the above list that multiple other academics have already done the same).--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Student7 asks "Is gozuku commonly used as a term in English", and in response, I would say that yes, this is the common term used in English for discussing this specific topic in Japanese history. Student7 also ask "Will the policy regarding the use of commonly used terms in English" be enforced or not?" My response is that I see nothing about the title or the article itself that violates the policy WP:TITLE, Can you please quote specific policy language that you believe is violated here? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1. It is a clear violation of WP:ENGLISH. 2. It is not in general use in English. 3. There are multiple acceptable terms for it in English. 4. Wikipedia is not the place to insert terms not widely in general use in English. 5. I doubt that 1% of English speakers have even heard this term and that fewer can define what it means without prompting. "Snurtlefarb may be a common term for a cane used to beat kangaroos in Bohemia." That snurtlefarb is the common term somewhere else is not the problem. The problem is that it is not English, nor used generally in English. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't any term "generally" used for this specific concept in English, so we have to make do with what we have available, and the original Japanese term is a perfectly good solution. Most people don't know what the term means; but of the (small minority of) people who are aware of the concept probably do know the term that denotes that concept (or if they don't, would be very glad to find it out).--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appripoate English language term. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japanese and European feudalism may be analogous, but they're not identical. The term is country-specific, and not an exact synonym. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Linguistically speaking, the English language adds more foreign origin words into its own more than most. In fact, the English language has 12,000 words to describe things in the Arctic alone. Most of which were taken directly from the local Inuit language. If there is no perfect "one to one" translation for Gōzoku, then Gōzoku should stay. --Larp30 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And that is a problem for Wikipedia. We are not supposed to help the process (make reality). We are supposed to document it. The problem with being an Anglophone is the affinity for foreign words. This attitude is pov for this case. Not in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gozoku . That is a problem. A serious problem which can only be answered by deleting this until or when it enters English. Editors do not create English anymore than they "invent" new articles. We document what has happened already. Gozoku is not in the English dictionary. Only one or two editors have attempted to answer this question so far, which is the only question. Student7 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not a Dictionary of Basic English. --Hegvald (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (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.