Speedy deletion nomination of Kaitoku-ji
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kaitoku-ji for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Hi, I was wondering - how is even defined what articles can be in an encyclopedia? I found the article on Japanese Wikipedia and it seemed like something big enough to have its own page on the English Wikipedia, too. Is there a project page that has when pages are not important enough to be an article of their own?
- That is a very good question. I looked at WP:GEOFEAT, where it says "Buildings ... can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Your article had no references at all. Can you find some English sources that mention the temple? Then you can establish notability. The mere fact that the building was covered in Japanese WP does not make it notable for English WP. If you can only find Japanese references, perhaps the temple is only notable in Japan. ubiquity (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- So I can't write articles about subject that don't have English sources? Because the sources I'm finding (I checked the one on Japanese Wikipedia and they seem fairly reliable, and google also shows 100k+ results) are indeed only Japanese. But I don't think whether or not sources are translated is entirely an indicator of the significance of a subject. Of course it gives an idea, but I don't think it should be the only measure to take into account.
- I'm not saying you can or can't do anything. Your article basically said, "Kaitoku-ji is a temple in a certain location in Japan." No further assertions of notability, no references at all. I didn't think it was notable, so I nominated it for speedy deletion. A moderator agreed with me, and deleted it. You're right, the references do not have to be in English. I looked at the |General Notability Guideline, and the third bullet makes it clear that references do not have to be in English, and do not have to be online. So if you have Japanese-only references, that's better than nothing. But it would still make me wonder why the temple was of interest to someone reading an English encyclopedia. If there is something special about this temple that you think makes it internationally notable, you should say so, even if you don't have an English reference. Then at least we would know why you think it belongs here. ubiquity (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would generally assume that if Japanese Wikipedia deemed it sufficiently notable (and I added interlanguage links to and from the equivalent Japanese article from which I translated), then it would be sufficiently notable for English Wikipedia, too; otherwise it would be like forbidding this article to exist on any Wikipedia other than the Japanese because the temple is only interesting and notable enough for Japanese users/readers? I don't know, that doesn't sit well with me: people who visit Japan would be unable to use Wikipedia as a reference for anything but the really famous temples and landmarks. I am going to mark the article for undeletion now. I think it really didn't need to be deleted.