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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 831

[edit]

This article appears to be either a hoax or an obscure conspiracy theory. The claims made about this unit are nonsense ("Unit 831 have access to bleeding edge technology some five to ten years in advance of current technology" is an example). No sources at all are provided and nothing appears on a Google search: [1]. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are similar nonsense and unsourced conspiracy theory articles related to this article and created by the same editor:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Sort of obvious that the article's a hoax once it gets to the "Foo-figthers" (sic) and "Fu-Go Ballon Bomb" part.--Tree Biting Conspiracy !?! 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These articles appear to be unedited machine translations from some foreign language. The translation got the tenses all wrong. These topics appear related to World War II. Fg2 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked google for "831 部隊"[2], which I suppose would be the name of the Unit in kanji (as per analogy of the name of Unit 731 in Japanese and Chinese), and there's only a sprinkling of Chinese pages that use the phrase. As far as I could see from the autotranslator, none of these deal with the unit in question. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the lot as obvious hoax/nonsense. -- The Anome (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have loved to have speedy deleted them, but unfortunetly hoax/nonsense isn't one of the criteria for speedy deletion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles that are blatantly false may be speedily deleted as patent nonsense and/or vandalism. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish that were the case, but CSD#G1 states that "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.", and I'm not 100% sure that this was intended as a hoax - it's clearly nonsense, but the editor who created it might think that it's a valid conspiracy theory - so I'd be uncomfortable deleting it under CSD#G3. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, in that case the policy doesn't quite match the practice, or perhaps the pratice doesn't follow the policy. Take Superhumanultramicroscopicsilicrispyhulahoopyosis; the article wasn't quite incoherent, but it was blatantly untrue (as opposed to just "implausible"), and it even admitted that it wasn't factual. It was marked as patent nonsense and I have deleted it as such. Should I have taken a different criterion (say, an editing experiment), or even brought it to VfD? And this is just one example. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's all subjective; ie how blatant does a "blatant hoax" have to be to constitute vandalism?--Tree Biting Conspiracy ♣§♠ !?! 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are not obvious hoaxes. They are bad translations. Fg2 (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, both is the case - they are badly translated hoaxes. Delete. (Speedy deletion, regular deletion, at least the articles will be be gone.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As hoax or nonsense and as lacking refs to show notability. But the closing admin should make sure that this nonsense is not just a bad translation of some article about a cartoon show, because those are presently immune to deletion because of an injunction from arbcom. Edison (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arbcom injunction only deals with articles about single episodes and characters, which this one isn't by any stretch of the wording. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell if this is a conspiracy theory, haox, or in-universe backstory for a work of fiction. None of the obvious search terms find useful related information in English, which I would expect if it were the first. Am withholding !vote pending further investigation by those who read Japanese and Chinese. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article appears to be a poor translation, perhaps about material related to Unit 731. --Pixelface (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no sources. Some text in the Mitsubishi "Raimaru"/"Kamaru article looks like it came from bibleufo.com or Geocities or this Australian site (Captain Alvah M. Reida was piloting a B-29 bomber...). --Pixelface (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not exactly nonsense, but close to it. This is a rare case that I say, start over. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." These articles make exceptional claims, but list no sources. The user who started the articles, Josl22, can copy them to his or her user space prior to deletion for further work on providing sources and polishing the translation, and when they're ready, create the articles again. Fg2 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. I agree that these appear to be badly-translated by a machine, particularly bad, in fact. I also agree with Fg2 that userfying them would be fine if the creator of the articles can find some sort of sources to back up the content. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the best solution: Delete after a copy is made in the author's userspace, to work on sourcing and cleaning up. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Elaborate hoax with mixing facts like (Fu-Go) Ballon Bomb. Oda Mari (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the nature of the material in the articles (eg, an secret occult Imperial Japanese organisation from the 1940s with super-advanced technology!), I'd say that it's impossible that any reliable sources can be found. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Quasirandom, I can't tell if this is a conspiracy theory, hoax, or in-universe backstory for a work of fiction. Google yeilds plenty of hits for Unit 831, but none appear to have anything to do with this article. [3] Edward321 (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are nothing but hoax. What is matsuraboshi? There is no such word in Japanese. The Japanese name of Hyades (star cluster) is 釣鐘星/Tsuriganeboshi. And I found this when I G-searched Matsuraboshi. Oda Mari (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I found the right word. It is Mutsuraboshi/六連星, not Matsuraboshi and it is another name of Pleiades (star cluster) or Subaru, not Hyades.Oda Mari (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the kamura one due to inability to add sources, but keep the Matsuraboshi one as sources do seem to exist for that one. Also delete Unit 831 due to lack of available sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I wrote above, the name Matsuraboshi itself is a doubtful word. Le Grand Roi des Citouilles, could you show me how the word is written in kanji? Oda Mari (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2008 (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.