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 merge to Morphy number. Or to another page as determined by subsequent consensus. Sandstein 05:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shusaku number[edit]

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

Prodded and deleted article was brought back. Topic is completely nonnotable, with no reliable source. Only mention of a source at all in article is to a page that fails WP:RS quite dramatically. This doesn't even meet our inclusion guidelines for being mentioned in *any* article, let alone demonstrating notability enough to have its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. It's difficult to find reliable English language sources for go related content; there's a lot of "folklore" that may well be documented in an Asian language, but most English-speaking Wikipedia editors don't have easy access to this literature. Therefore a little patience is called for. I thought it was worth bringing this article back for a second look, but I won't be at all surprised if it gets deleted in the near future. However, I hope it can be done in a civil manner; adjectives such as "completely", "dramatically" and "spectacularly" (from the original prod) are not constructive. Jowa fan (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I previously mentioned elsewhere, I don't think the article should be deleted, but I don't have the time and motivation to go through the legalistic rules to understand why it deserves to be deleted or to find reasons that it shouldn't. I am not an experienced editor, but if somebody can suggest specific ways to improve the article, then I can try to improve it. I also strongly dislike the manner and tone used in the deletion proposal. [Added note] I am the article's creator. aditsu (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've edited the article to show its wider context. The Shusaku system is one of a few such numbers, & the others are all on WP it seems. I wouldn't support this article's deletion because it's less mainstream (in the West at least). If you compare it with the others on WP, you see that it relates to a man who died in 1829, making it the oldest-based system. I don't think there's any doubt that within Go circles, the Shusaku mumber exists and has some meaning. That's not to say that the article couldn't be improved & more/better references found. I'd also echo the sentiment about vocabulary. Trafford09 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ I'm not finding a single reliable source for this term. That said, I'd guess those terms might be found in Japanese and so my search might not prove much. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC) ---merge to Morphy number. One good source and a reasonable merge target makes merging a good solution. I'd say nothing more than a couple of sentences though. Hobit (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hobit: I concede that RSs in English are hard to find. But I don't know if you had checked out the Reference I added to the article? It's a link to a Christmas Quiz that EuroGoTV ran. EuroGoTV is an established concern. It is endorsed at the highest level (an icon link from their home page) by the European Go Federation (EGF). The latter is the recognised Go umbrella association for Europe, 54 years old. The EGF has 35 member countries' associations affiliated to it. Would you not deem EuroGoTV a proper source? Trafford09 (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a solid source from what I can tell. Do you know of any other reliable sources, in English or otherwise? Hobit (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found any other good ones in English. I notice though that the article already had inter-wiki links to our sister-Wikipedias' equivalent articles in Japanese and Chinese. I don't speak those languages sufficiently to suggest how good those links are. Having said that, I suppose the fact that the article exists in Japanese WP (& Chinese for over 2 years) is a good sign of authenticity in Shusaku's own country of birth. Trafford09 (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly merge. Even within the relevent field (the Go community) this concept is just not independently notable (if you ever hear it mentioned it will always be followed by an explanation of this obscure concept regarding some mathematician..). Aditsu, no matter how much you edit the article, you can never fix a lack of notability. Trafford09, even in other languages it is still not really notable (e.g., ja.wikipedia - Shusaku's language - does have a stub but only cites the English Go community's wiki), and such a minor reference by EuroGo (where the tone introduces it as esoteric trivia unfamiliar to most of the relevent field) notwithstanding either. The only possible significance of the topic is in relation to the concept on which it (like several other proposed minor variations) is based, so here is a solution that avoids disenfranchising anyone for now: redirect to Erdős_number#Shusaka_number (and develop a section there for all the similar minor variations). In particular, note that part of the existing Shusaku number content (the table of similar variations) is obviously much more appropriate on that main Erdos number article rather than one offshoot article. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge, Morphy number is a better target. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Notability is about whether reliable sources can be found, not whether the topic feels important to people. Whether it's "esoteric trivia" is irrelevant: there's plenty of precedent for (well-documented) trivia on Wikipedia. The statement "this concept is just not independently notable" is unprovable: it's possible that the necessary sources do exist but just haven't been found yet. However, given the current paucity of sources, it seems to me that merging is the best practical solution for the time being. Jowa fan (talk) 00:38, 23 May 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.