Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mochikoro

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 delete. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mochikoro

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

A search for references found no independent WP:RS for this article, fails WP:N and WP:V, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kin-Kon-Kan. Prod removed with "another ridiculous prod" [1] Article is about a binary-determination logic puzzle published by Nikoli JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could quite easily be redirected to Nurikabe though. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity to Nurikabe is only in the logical process involved in solving and not something that would make a redirect to that specific puzzle make sense. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is part of a (certainly unconscious) cultural bias against significant Japanese topics. Searching for an English rendition of the word won't find any the Japanese sources. Per Wikipedia policies on cultural bias and notability we are supposed to give a global view to topics, not just what some English speaker with little familiarity with the topic can pull up with a basic Google search. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. Re the comment above about this being a "significant Japanese topic", the fact that no Japanese Wikipedia article exists on the subject that would seem to suggest that it is not at all significant. --DAJF (talk) 08:45, 8 January 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.