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. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collon (confectionery)[edit]

Collon (confectionery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The page is a phantom: "collon" simply is not a term used in any language to refer to wagashi, the topic of the article. There is a type of "western-style" (yōgashi) confection called 'collon', produced by Glico, but this is not referenced in the page. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur. The sources cited turn out to be about wagashi, with no mention of "collon" that I've come across. All of the images of "collon" uploaded by the article creator at Commons are also up for deletion for being outright filched from WWW sites about wagashi. I found the Glico thing, too. The article creator has misrepresented the sources as to their amply clear name of the subject. Who knows what other misrepresentations lurk in the content! Any sort of merger seems contraindicated. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh but Uncle G, this wretched article can't even decide whether or not it's about wagashi. We read that this "Collon" is "also called wagashi in Japanese", that it's "a combination of a variety of sweets, candies, ice cream and dessert", and that it has a number of types -- among which, ice cream doesn't appear, and senbei does. (Senbei, a kind of wagashi -- really?) Oh, and we read that mochi "is a type of collon". (Huh?) Reality check: This is Collon コロン, an inexpensive, mass-produced product of Ezaki Glico. Here it is at ja:WP. (Don't confuse it with the long-established confectioner コロンバン Colombin, colombin.co.jp/.) En:Wikipedia already has an article about wagashi, one that wouldn't benefit from any input from this hopelessly confused mess, none of which should be merged anywhere. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it does seem that wagashi can include senbei, or just about anything except "Western" high-sugar confectionery. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One of the most (unintentionally) amusing parts of this sorry effort is the classification of "Bing Sheng", "Shang Sheng", "Cha Xi", "Shi" and "Gong Yi" varieties of "collon". Anyone at least slightly familiar with the romanization of Japanese will immediately realize that these are, at best, extraordinarily idiosyncratic renderings. And many literate people will think: aha, this isn't Japanese at all; it's just Chinese, via pīnyīn. Now, I don't know Chinese, but I'd guess: "Bing Sheng" is supposed to represent 並生菓子, "Shang Sheng" 上生菓子, "Cha Xi" 茶席菓子, "Shi" 蒔菓子, and "Gong Yi" 工芸菓子; each as if read in standard Chinese and if followed by whatever's the Chinese pronunciation of 菓子 (guozi, perhaps?). Now, there are certain ambiguities in the Japanese readings -- thanks in part to rendaku; is 菓子 kashi or gashi? -- but the cited source (a decent one, as it happens) takes the trouble to specify that 蒔 is pronounced maki (not shi). The moral: Don't take seriously any citation in the article of a Japanese-language source. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this hopeless mess, the decent article is wagashi.Fulmard (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wagashi: As an alternative per WP:ATD-R. If this is really about wagashi, why would we not redirect there? The page views suggest it’s indeed a valid search term, and if redirection gets readers to the correct information, that would seem the best solution. (Not opposed to history deletion if someone feels that’s absolutely necessary, but nothing jumps out at me to say so; the history hasnt seen much activity since acceped through AfC.) —2pou (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the WP:XYZ definition of "valid search term", but in no sense does "collon" mean, refer to, or be related in any normal sense to wagashi. Actually, if someone was looking for "collon", they probably read it on the package of the Glico yōgashi ("western sweets"), so such a redirect would be completely misleading. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2022 (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.