Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/失楽園

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

失楽園

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

A disambig page with a Japanese title. No need for this in EN wiki - if anyone knows a rule I could use to speedy pages like this, I have a couple more. JaGa^talk 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Wrong Wikipedia. Dictionary definition of non-English language. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Lost Paradise as this is its original language title. All foreign language original (original language of the subject) titles should have those redirect to the English title used on Wikipedia. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Japanese language disambiguation pages are allowed on EN. See WP:CJKV. As long as the original language titles (ie, if we have two articles on Japanese subjects with the same name in Japanese) match, then a dab page can be built. This one however does not qualify, since the original language of Milton's poem is English, not Japanese. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks for the info. So, should Chinese character articles in EN wiki solely be redirects and disambiguation pages? This sounds like the policy I'm seeking. --JaGa^talk 12:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be the case. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is permissible; en.wikipedia users come from all over the world. bd2412 T 02:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to A Lost Paradise, the primary topic for shitsurakuen. There is no need for a CJKV disambiguation page because even though there is a manga with the same title, they are pronounced same so a simple Roman character redirect works. --Kusunose 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Lost Paradise. The hatnote there provides the needed disambiguation, as Kusunose pointed out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no redirect. This was a bad idea. It seems pretty clear that there was no ambiguity to begin with. If someone enters "失楽園" into the search engine, it will already guide them to A Lost Paradise, see [1]. In addition, so will following the link from [2]. Making a redirect for the benefit of users from elsewhere in the world may sound courteous and thoughtful, but its impractical. Should we create redirects in all the world's writing systems for all articles? That type of help is somewhat condescending, along the lines of "I will speak v-e-r-y slowly to you, okay?" Mandsford 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having redirects created doesn't mean that all such redirects must be created, or for one writing system to all writing systems. This argument is akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), I would say we should not have foreign-language redirects unless those words have some usage in the English language. It's OK for Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. Sounds like an opportunity to clarify policy. --JaGa^talk 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is already clear, but it disagrees with your suggestion. "Redirects from non-English names are encouraged." WP:ENGLISH. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for this. The wikiproject that the IP refers to seems to make disambiguations of characters that are the same in the native language, but have multiple English translations. This case is a one to one conversion, so it does not apply. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the disambig isn't needed, but the redirect can be kept. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) This one needs a bit more discussion. There appears to be valid arguments by seasoned editors on both sides.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Mandsford says. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto as Mansford says. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above notes on what Mansford says. And also WP:PERNOM -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 26 October 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.