Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinmeiaishinkai
- 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 for now. It seems that most people believe that this topic is notable and verifiable. — TKD::Talk 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shinmeiaishinkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A "new religion" which generates little noise via a quick Google search, and the only reference listed is a single page in a magazine. Only link is from the article Urban Shamanism, which characterizes this religion as being a form of that religion. It's been tagged as needed more notability information for about six months now, and unless someone finds something now, this doesn't really seem worth keeping. fuzzy510 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. I don't recall why I created this stub, but I think it was to wikify the term in another article. HOWEVER, just to explain what you are looking at, though the listed reference is to a page in a journal, the reference is to a review of a book (that I have not seen), Religion in Japan: Arrows to Heaven and Earth (ISBN 0521550289) published by Oxford University Press, a collection of essays honoring Carmen Blacker, a scholar of Japanese folklore and religion. According to the review, one of the chapters in the book is about Shinmeiaishinkai, explaining that it is a "new religion" founded in Tokyo in the 1970's. Therefore, I believe that someone with access to the book could potentially add more information to this stub. Crypticfirefly 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I've looked on OUP's website, the relevant article is "Shinmeiaishinkai and the study of shamanism in contemporary Japanese religious life" by Helen Hardacre, a professor at Harvard University. Looks like the book is pretty readiliy available in academic libraries. Crypticfirefly 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I would suggest "keep" but feel that would be inappropriate as I made this stub in the first place and am not going to have the time to hunt down the cited book anytime soon. That said, I'm convinced that someone with access to the book would be able to establish notability one way or the other. Crypticfirefly 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the book is available at the University of Maryland, where User:Fuzzy510 happens to be (according to his user page). Crypticfirefly 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I would suggest "keep" but feel that would be inappropriate as I made this stub in the first place and am not going to have the time to hunt down the cited book anytime soon. That said, I'm convinced that someone with access to the book would be able to establish notability one way or the other. Crypticfirefly 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I've looked on OUP's website, the relevant article is "Shinmeiaishinkai and the study of shamanism in contemporary Japanese religious life" by Helen Hardacre, a professor at Harvard University. Looks like the book is pretty readiliy available in academic libraries. Crypticfirefly 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source (Arrows) is available at google books and searching for "komatsu kiyoko". Searching the web for the founders name in kanji (小松 清子) has not turned up much in Japanese. Neier 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also be interested in finding out if searching the web for the name of the religion in kanji turns up much. Crypticfirefly 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I finally found the kanji, and added it to the article. Google comes up with 117 hits. The second one is to a forum, which ties the religion to these shrines. The shrines fare a bit better in google (235 hits). Neier 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that another one is to a magazine that apparently had an article about this religion: http://www.nihonjournal.jp/web/jituwa_200630/index.html.Crypticfirefly 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I finally found the kanji, and added it to the article. Google comes up with 117 hits. The second one is to a forum, which ties the religion to these shrines. The shrines fare a bit better in google (235 hits). Neier 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also be interested in finding out if searching the web for the name of the religion in kanji turns up much. Crypticfirefly 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Do we need an article about every religious movement however obscure?--Bedivere 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? How obscure this is, I mean. Crypticfirefly 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually, Wikipedia should have an article on every religious movement, except for those that come under the heading of "things made up in school one day". RandomCritic 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, searching on ja:wikipedia returns a link to 新宗教 which links to New religious movement from which you can navigate to List of new religious movements where you'll find 200 or so other "new religons. According to this list a religion founded in 1937 would still be considered "new" by the Japanese, so a 1970 one would still be new. I'm pretty convinced by crypticfirely's arguements as to its credentials and that this is not a recent crackpot religon. Despite the paucity of details in te article as it is I'd be loathe to delete, as to do so would reinforce the systemic bias towards English Western topics. Maybe we could give this article another six months and in the mean time put a request for help on the ja:wikipedia's 新宗教 discussion page.KTo288 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sandstein 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per KTo288. Ichormosquito 16:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No Lexis/Nexis hits, though the scholarly sources cited in the article are enough to sustain a short article. No harm would be done if this were merged into some appropriate larger article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as per nom,not notable and even the person who created the stub has abstained.Harlowraman 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Crypticfirefly is just being polite and neutral by abstaining from an article he or she has a vested interest in.KTo288 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One major source, but it is scholarly, and the religion is attested to have 50,000 members at that writing. Surely there must be more sources for this somewhere, perhaps under a different name. --Dhartung | Talk 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've put a request for enlightenment and help at WikiProjectJapan talk page. Hopefully someone can tell us how notable the topic is.KTo288 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The information I can find on it indicates it's not just a tiny little group. However, outside of the one scholarly source, all the other information online seems to be in blogs and other sources considered less reliable. I do think that one scholarly source should be given more weight than normal in this case as it's very, likely there are other books out there that just aren't available online. Japan does lag a little (2-3 years, though the gap is getting smaller) behind the States in having resources online. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is clearly a significant topic that WP should cover. RandomCritic 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable Fosnez 15:21, 25 August 2007 (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.