Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redneck Katana

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redneck Katana

[edit]

This article has absolutely no potential to become encyclopedic, ever. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 20:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Let me get this straight - the entire article is a quote from a Neal Stephenson book, plus two sentences of discussion about practice? I'm inclined to agree, Delete. - RedWordSmith 21:29, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going vote keep on the basis of Does the subject ever appear outside of its fictive context and therefore require an encyclopedia to explain it? (Geogre). The google results (ok, only 34 of them) indicate that it's an obscure but real term in martial arts. Kappa 21:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If this redneck katana is a real thing, then keep the bit explaining what it is and delete all the Stephenson stuff, which really doesn't belong. If it only exists within the Stephenson world then delete it. -R. fiend 22:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - it doesn't exist outside its fictive context any more than Light sabre does (the difference being that this is an obscure piece of fiction, not a worldwide phenomenon). Mdchachi|Talk 22:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've got to refer to my own rule, above. The question is whether it appears outside of reference to this novel. Are martial artists using this term? If they are, keep. What I saw, though, was just self-referential labelling of references to the Neil Stephenson novel. (BTW, I think the light sabre gets quoted pretty often by people who don't say "as in 'Star Wars,'" just as people say "phasers on stun" without saying "from 'Star Trek,'" so those deserve break outs.) The issue for me in these cases is not "should we have the information," but "should we have a stand-alone article?" I.e. merge the material back into Snowbound (novel) would be ok. Since I don't think it's common in any case, I haven't voted merge and redirect. Geogre 23:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Granted I should have left off the joke and perhaps yes getting rid of the quote would be a good thing. A google search does in fact give more than a few hits with the term being used by martial artists and gamers outside of Stephenson. Also I think that labeling Snow Crash as "obscure" is not fair. Among geek circles it is as well known as either Star Trek or Star Wars. Perhaps merging it back is a good choice but how much weight should be given to a vote that can't get the novel correct? Also yes it is somewhat obscure. Isn't part of the point of Wikipedia to have things that are ignored by the mainstream? It's a well loved and known book and refrence among many geeks. I vote to keep and change rather than delete.--Scarynetworkguy 00:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm not geek enough today, but I was in my own time. (Don't suppose your Zappa trivia is up to speed, either.) Geogre 01:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No it's not. But I would also not vote on a Zappa article. That was my point. No drama. --Scarynetworkguy 02:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't want the artist who drew the "Freak Out" cover as an encyclopedic article, though, nor Saint Alfonso's House of Pancakes, even though that phrase was all the rage for a while. Or, for that matter, "Bob" as a reference for "Bucket of Brains," which was a common punk term for an anonymous functionary -- Mr. Normal. I.e. the point of being geek is that there is a subculture that spreads out from it like ink from an octopus. It's all very cool and very in-group. I just don't think it's very encyclopedic. Geogre 05:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep and explain how it's only being used by stephenson fans HussaynKhariq 00:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • redirect and merge with suburito. There already is an article that describes this concept: why create another? [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact, I have already merged it into suburito. I'll leave it up to you guys whether to delete, keep or create a redirect. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I've read and very much like the new entry. At this point I would vote that the link off of the Snow Crash page should be redirected to suburito and the entry under question deleted. Let me also say that learning how this should work and what is expected has been really pretty cool. I hope to be able to do better in the future. Thanks all for your feedback.
  • Delete. ComCat.
  • Delete --Carnildo 09:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Create a redirect. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:00, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Useless, delete. Besides, everyone knows that a "redneck katana" is a lawnmower blade duct-taped to a broken pool cue. Honest. Inky 02:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I take aikido, and the process exists. You buy a 10 pound bokken (practice katana) and do 1000 sword chops. Every google link seems to be referring to the Snow Crash use of the term. Anusien
  • With the extra fact checking done, I'd say a redirect to Suburito or bokken is now the correct action. (Since that actually mentions redneck katana in this context :-) ) Kim Bruning 19:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. No evidence the term has currency outside the context of the book it appears in. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Redneck_Katana&oldid=1054176350"