Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawaii

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 of the debate was Keep. --maru (talk) contribs

[edit] Kawaii

An honest effort at bloating a dic-def of a non-English word.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. No vote from me, I don't really think the supposed evidence of usage stands up to wiki's standards, and I'm prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep and tag for cleanup, as per discussion below. It seems like a reasonable entry to me, with considerable bits of useful information. The anime/manga community seems to have co-opted this word for its own purposes, and the aricle addresses that. It's notable, it's interesting, it contains useful information for a researcher; why would we want to delete it? --FreelanceWizard 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you consider "useful"? Or "notable"?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I consider the topic "notable" because I hear the word in this sense in common use, and I consider the article "useful" because if I were researching the anime/manga subculture in the US, this article would be a helpful source (along with the other articles in its categories). Your opinion, it would seem, differs. My vote remains keep, however. If you believe the article has problems, you can certainly improve it. Given your list of concerns below, perhaps it would be beneficial to alter the article to recast the term as something used by Americans, where the usage is apparently not the same as it is in Japan; better yet, one could make a comparison out of it. I can't comment on that, not being knowlegeable on Japanese culture. I agree with Ikkyu2 and Saberwyn on this one. --FreelanceWizard 07:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (I'm not sure how my comment here got mangled with someone's sig, or why other people took it upon themselves to mangle it further, but I've corrected it, I think. --FreelanceWizard 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

This is the same conclusion I've come to after hours spent banging my head against the brick wall that is certain users on the article's discussion page. While the word has been adopted by a specialist interest group, (which doesn't mean it's becoming a loanword) it's meaning has been altered in the process. The current article doesn't address this and operates under the mistaken idea that kawaii is some specific, defined style of anime / drawing / fashion. If this can be rectified then there may be a place for the article to define what the word has come to mean when used in manga and anime fan circles and then this can be contrasted with the meaning in Japanese. Barryvalder 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that etymologies that are limited to small fan circles are not presently considered worthy of Wikipedia articles, although they may be in the future. Do not correct me on my word choice with "small fan circles". While there is a considerable following in the US, there is no "altered meaning" for the word for the majority of these people, who merely use the word as-is, along with other "trendy" Japanese words that they have pulled from anime, such as "genki", "kakkoii", "ohayo" etc. If you can find some kind of proof that the word is being used in a non-Japanese fashion (that would be a loanword by the way) then it may be advisable to rewrite the article, but as you just stated the article doesn't address this issue and thus contains no valid information. As per the previous comment, if you were a researcher looking for information on Anime/manga culture ... wouldn't you rather check out anime (which explains the word kawaii) and manga?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My initial conclusion was that which I could make from the views of those who pushed the article for all they could. I was assuming, probably naively, that those people spoke for fans of anime and manga. Anime / manga fan culture is not my area. The everyday use and meaning of Japanese words is. If it's the case that fans of Japanese culture use the word with the same meaning as it holds in Japanese, and not as the name of a specific style etc, then the article is entirely without value beyond it's initial dictionary definition. As you note below, the vast majority of the article should either be employed elsewhere, or deleted outright. Barryvalder 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, Freshgavin, I'd check out anime, manga, and anything else that looked interesting or relevant in the related topics or category sections. A good researcher doesn't just read one article and stop, especially when using a source of possibly dubious validity. By the way, I'm with Barryvalder and others on this; it should be kept, IMHO, but it should also be cleaned up. So, I'm altering my vote somewhat to keep and tag for cleanup. I really don't believe a strong case for deletion has been made, though there might be a case here for merging what may be useful from the article (which, again, is speaking more to US anime/manga subculture as far as I can tell) into another article and changing this into a redirect. --FreelanceWizard 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, now Weak keep per below. I think this one is a judgment call. I judge that the article should be kept; I can respect others' opinions that it might be unencyclopedic. I think, however, that since we are not to act as though we were constrained by space, and since this is clearly a good faith effort to explain the English-language significance of a loanword, that we should keep. If there were blatant advertising or evidence of other bad faith, I'd reconsider. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Loanword co-opted by the many and varied anime/manga fan communities. Also a cultural fad within Japan and the abovementined communities. However, it could do with some sources. -- Saberwyn 05:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It is not a cultural fad in Japan. It is merely a common adjective.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I was thinking of the "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" fad, which was apparently studied by Yamane Kazuma, along with the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media marketed and referred to by this term in Japan, the US, and Australia. -- Saberwyn 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're being sarcastic. If it was considered fashionable to be "cute" in hollywood, and the London Times posted an article that said so, would you consider that a reason to make "cute" a valid Wikipedia article? Also, the whole "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" section doesn't belong here anyways. It has nothing to do with the word "kawaii" except for the fact that girls like to write in a "cute" or "pretty" style. I would have thought the fact that the research was called "Female Teenage Writing" and not "Kawaii writing" would stand for that.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The one place that "the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media" isn't marketed and referred to by this term is in Japan itself. My conclusion from the endless war-of-words on the article's discussion page is that the fundamental misunderstanding over the words's use in it's native country is a huge factor in the unreliability of this article. "Animals are often drawn in excessively Kawaii style" one user insists on writing. What I've attempted to get across is that in Japan there is no such thing as Kawaii style, making the statement meaningless OR. If any article is to exist on this topic, it has to address the Japanese meaning and the meaning being given when used in English. Barryvalder 10:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Explained above. Also, the misunderstanding with "kawaii style" comes from the fact that it is common in Japanese to suffix "-kei" onto some adjectives which may be translated as "kawaii type" or "style", but there is no implication of a specific style of kawaii, simply that X is of a "cute"/"pretty" persuasion, as opposed to a "sexy"/"ugly"/"glamorous"/etc. one.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Even if you accept the validity of WP:WINAD as grounds for deleting anything, only articles that are just a definition and can never be more than just a definition fall squarely within its terms. What's already there already brings it out of its purview, and the fact that someone considers the additional encyclopedic information "bloating" overextends the category. Smerdis of Tlön 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "bloating" was that the editors (particularly one) was adding inutile information to make the article look much bigger than it actually should be. The accusations of cultural influence and transition to English are completely unfounded.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they original research? We don't have to exclude completely unfounded theories, or "accusations" as you jokingly call them; we just have to source them. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really want to classify it as "original research", though there is obviously quite a bit of that. I'm just more concerned about the collections of material that has no relation to the actual word, many of them POV.

• Kawaii characters typically (but not exclusively) are drawn with large eyes and small noses and mouths (this comment refers to anime style, which has no relation to the word kawaii)
• Pets are often drawn in a kawaii style (this statement means nothing more than "pets are drawn cutely")
• Kawaii characters generally have angelic personalities (original research, I see no reason why the author would want to say this if not just to get a picture of his favourite anime character added to the page)
• Kawai is a Japanese term (it's not a term, its a word. by saying "term" the author is trying to bloat its importance)
• Kawaii should not to be confused with "kowai" (Japanese speakers have very little trouble distinguishing the two words, this is a statement fit for an introduction to Japanese textbook)
• The term can be subjective as Kawaii can be used to describe anything an individual considers cute which can include attractive women. (a completely worthless statement. Saying an adjective is "subjective" is no more useful than saying that "good" is POV)
• Kawaii merchandise is extremely popular in Japan (should say "cute/pretty things are popular [to certain groups] in Japan" and be moved to "Japanese culture")
• The two largest manufacturers of such merchandise are Sanrio (manufacturers of "Hello Kitty") and San-X. (original research, sourceless, and POV)
• The proliferation of mechandise regarded as kawaii is considered by some to be an expression of a female-led youth movement (equals: girls like cute things. Useless information.)
• Kawaii can be also used to describe fashions. (another useless statement. It is a widely used adjective and can be used to describe almost anything you like, much like "cute" or "pretty" can. The author then goes on to describe fashions that are considered cute in Japan, which should be part of "Japanese culture")
• When the kawaii 'craze' began to develop in Japan during the 1970s (sourceless OR. A correct statement would refer to the "boom" that Japan experienced in the early 1980s, thus allowing women greater freedom of choice in fashion, another tidbit for the "Japanese culture" article, or possibly one on the boom itself)
• Previously Japanese writing had been written vertically using strokes that vary in thickness along their length. The new style was written laterally, preferably using a mechanical pencil to produce very fine, even lines. (absolutely rediculous OR statements. Japanese has been written horizontally as well as vertically for more than a hundred years, nothing to do with "cuteness". Mechanical pencils are just another example of influence from western cultures, again nothing to do with "cuteness".

I don't have the patience to pick out any more of this article's flaws. It's pure junk.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, it seems your criticisms are on the grounds of verifiability. I confess that when I see this sort of writing, my instinct is to assume good faith. I don't have any way of verifying either your assertions or those in the article. Will change my vote to "weak keep" to reflect this. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I commend you on assuming good faith. I called this AfD because I felt it should be deleted on the grounds of it being a Japancruft dicdef. Most of the points I just complained about above have been deleted before (in fact, the whole article has been deleted recently) and I didn't really feel like trying to rectify all those points before listing it for deletion as a one line dicdef, basically throwing myself into the edit war that already exists. As it is, I'm listing the first line of the article for transwiki (the article already exists) and the rest of it is trash and should be deleted.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Terence Ong 08:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete now Rewrite needed This article, as it stands, is horrendously inacurate. The article is full of OR, pointless information and misunderstandings as shown by User:Freshgavin who expertly picked the article to pieces above. My main objection with the article is the fundamental misunderstanding of the word's use in Japan. It means cute, adorable, darling etc and that's it. What is put forward by some authors of this article is that kawaii is a specific style or writing (it isn't), a specific type of animation (it isn't), a specific type of fashion (it isn't) etc. I've been attempting for a few days to correct this misunderstanding, but some users are insistent on the existence of a specific, definable kawaii style. My conclusion is that the word has gained a different, distinct meaning when used in English. The Japanese meaning and meaning when used by fans of Japanese culture are two different things. If this is the case any article on the topic has to make this clear from the start. A large percentage of the article is also given over to the idea that the word is becoming a loanword in English. This has stood with essentially zero evidence save for Gwen Stafani saying it in a video (while in Japan, it's worth noting), and more recently, a list of words created by past and present students at some university in America. The article needs to be torn down and started from scratch (if at all). Barryvalder 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — CJewell (talk to me) 12:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite per Barryvalder. I've deleted the loanword reference from the article because there is zero evidence sourced that this is truly becoming a loanword (linked "source" is problematic and you can see my argument against it and Barryvalder's better argument on the Talk page). I'm slapping it with a disputed tag for now because while I think it should be kept, there are legitimate concerns about the factual accuracy of the usage of this word in English that need to be resolved through better sourcing.--Isotope23 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, you didn't say why you thought it should be kept!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, because I don't think a strong case has been made for deletion.--Isotope23 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Not everything here's going to be Masterpiece Theatre, folks, and while this is admittedly an example of something that makes baby otaku cry, it's an honest attempt to define something beyond the simple scope of a dicdef (though, again, admittedly in need of work). I have heard from a friend about the kawaii handwriting phase, though to be honest, that probably deserves to go into another article, if not its own, as it has minimal bearing on the this. If not, redirect to Moé, since it's a similar concept (and probably what some of the authors of the original article had in mind).--み使い Mitsukai 16:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And unlike kawaii, moe (hepburn please) is encyclopedaeic material (slightly unfortunately), as it has a super-slang like status in Japan, describing a concept/culture/fad/state of mind? and is not simply a part of speech.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but where moe (I actually prefer the Hepburn, I just copied from the article's redirect) is the slang term there, kawaii seems to be gaining currency as the slang term here. As I said before, the article needs better justification than it's got right now, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. In any case, if we cannot save the article, that is why I recommended a redirect as a fallback. I don't think outright deletion is going to do any good in this case, but if no one can come up with a good reason for the existence of it as a seperate entity, then there are other ways of dealing with the issue.--み使い Mitsukai 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just one more note. A "delete and rewrite" vote would make more sense than a "keep and rewrite" vote because it would actually force a rewrite, whereas keeping it almost guarantees that it won't be "completely" rewritten at all. Also, a redirect implies a "delete and redirect".  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianGCrawfordMA (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep and Rewrite. Having lived in Japan for several years, I can tell you that "kawaii" (or "cute", since many young people there use the words interchangeably) is definitely a cultural aspect of Japan. Even big tough guys can be very frequently seen with cutesy character goods (such as Hello Hitty). "Kawaii" permeates the culture in Japan. The post office has cute mascot characters; almost every corporation has cute mascots; it really is everywhere. I do agree that the article needs some work, but it absolutely should not be deleted. --nihon 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that cuteness is very popular in Japan. That information should be represented within the culture of Japan article. A huge problem with this article is the fundamantal misunderstanding that the word kawaii represents a definable, distinct style or movement (wether it be anime/clothing/writing/etc). Living in Japan, you'll be aware that if you went into a manga shop and asked for the kawaii comics you'd get met with blank expressions. There's no such thing, just subjective judgement. This article, if it's to exist at all, can be made up of two or three sentences. The rest of the details as it stands are sourceless, lacking in evidence, and worthless POV. Barryvalder 08:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Culture of Japan article is too long as it is. This is absolutely a distinct cultural concept and is worth it's own article. As for walking into a comic shop and asking for "kawaii comics", you would be met with blank stares because they would assume you were a stupid gaijin, not because they wouldn't know what you're talking about. No, there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics", but that's because "kawaii" is so ingrained in the culture. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The culture of Japan can be any length it needs to be. With regards your startement as to how Japanese people will react to a question based on the race of the person asking it, well that is a very daft arguement Nihon. Would Japanese shop staff regard Africans as "stupid blacks" for asking the same question? Best to keep your sweeping generalisations and borderline racism to yourself.

Where do you get off calling me racist? If you can't form a coherent argument without calling someone racist, then I suggest you find someplace else to play. It's no more racist than how you'd be met in any other country in the world when asking a stupid question of a shopkeeper. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this as it's getting wildly off topic, but your asertation that Japanese shop staff will respond to customers based on the race of the customer is an incredbibly daft thing to say. It lacks any kind of basis and then you go on to give a sweeping anthropological statement covering ever member of the human race. This is even more rediculous. With such a comment you are treading a very thin line between generalisation and just plain ignorance, but I'm fairly certain you didn't understand the implications of what you wrote, so I can only ask you be more careful with your sweeping generalisations in future. This is a place for factual discussion, not the place for your very own sociological and anthropological conclusions. Barryvalder 23:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As you say yourself, "there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics."" The fact that there is this kind of specific, defined "kawaii style" is something most of the article hinges on. As we've long since established this isn't the case, the only information left is that cuteness is highly very valued in Japan. This can be summed up in two or three sentences and doesn't require all sorts of guff telling us what things might be regarded as cute. Barryvalder 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a translation of the Japanese article would nicely flesh-out this article. Nothing has been established here. There are just a few people telling a larger group that what they've observed isn't really what they've observed. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What you've observed? That would be OR then. We're trying to created an article of fact backed up with evidence. Not what you, or anyone else, has observed and made a conclusion on. For the record, the Japanese article is a definition is a definition of the word and when and how it is used. It makes no reference to any kind of kawaii movement Barryvalder 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, article definately needs and deserves improvement. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering most of the false statements that I criticized were written by you, I'm shocked by your comment.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true, if it were criticism by someone else I would have listened. Someone who hasn't actively blanked cited sections or attempted to delete the article. You are questioning the "legitness" of cited sources, the other party claims Rice University is some place nobody has heard about... Really guys, obviously article is not a featured article yet. There needs to be improvement. OBVIOUSLY and country to your claims, it is imposible to visit japan and NOT run into SOMETHING that is a product of the kawaii kraze weather that is anime/manga merchendice or company mascot. There is no definate kawaii thing as it is so heavly integrated.

• Kawaii Craze is similar to the Comic craze of the US in thelate 30s to early 50ies. During the Golden Age of Comic Books superman merchendice etc sold at ridiclous levels. In the US more people are likely to know who superman is rather than who the president is. Any native english speaker may/should thake comic craze for granted. It is perfectly casual for people to wear superman outfits in haloween. You do not reference people wearing superman outfits as a product of "comic craze" even though thats what it is.
• Of course comic-craze and kawaii-craze are poor comparasions. After all Kawaii was never restricted to paper and has been an ongoing craze spreading overseas.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Barryvalder and clean up. Freshgavin, let me guess—you want to delete, right? rodii 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to make sense.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is, you started off saying "no vote from me" but you have commented on this page sixteen times, all of them rebutting people who want to keep the article. Why be coy? —rodii 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are just on a delete kick. Deleting this article will not make WP "make sense". It will, however, remove a decent article that only needs a little improvement in order to be better. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why Kawaii_Neko would vote support? ;-) Kim Bruning 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, merging into Culture of Japan or Cuteness as this is a dictionary definition and original research functioning as nothing more than a place for hobbyists to accumulate trivia. Kawaii is just a word, a common adjective, always used subjectively. Yes, cute things are popular in Japan, nobody's denying that. And they're also popular in many other places by other different names. People are trying to portray it as an intrinsic aesthetic or Deeper Thing like (for example) Wabi-sabi but it simply isn't so. You do not improve or clean up dicdefs, they simply don't belong here. To those pointing at the length of the article as its validation, I point out that a dicdef can be inflated to whatever size serves the author's agenda, as has happened here. The Crow 23:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Using your argument, the same could be said for "Cuteness": it's just a word, a common adjective, always used subjectively. Unless you've lived in Japan, you won't likely know how much "kawaii" is ingrained in the culture there. "Kawaii" is everywhere in Japan. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, if we're pulling out the "who knows Japan" card, I have lived in Japan, I do speak Japanese, in fact I am married to a Japanese. I understand this may not be as sterling a credential as having memorized a dozen comic books, but believe me, I do know what kawaii is and what it is not. It's an adjective. It is not a concept. The Crow 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Kawaii is integrated into japanese culture and "kawaii kraze" in japan is like nowhere else. You didn't notice something everyone takes for granted (only happens if you are either "assimilated" into a culture (and hence ignore lots of obvious aspects) or if you are not a good observer and I do not believe it is the latter). The Kawaii-kraze is cited to exist by universities as well as various other notable works. Just because you havent noticed doesnt mean it doesnt exist. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit weary of being misrepresented on this subject. Yes, cute things permeate Japanese culture up and down, top to bottom, in and out and I've seen it firsthand. I have seen 50 year old men with Hello Kitty seatcovers on their cars. I'm not disputing that cute things are popular in Japan, mmkay? Nobody is disputing that. I'm disputing that "kawaii" is anything other than an adjective used to describe what someone's vision of cute is. It's always subjective. The Hello Hitty industry is not classified as "the kawaii industry" in Japan. Retailers do not order another lorry of "kawaii merchandise". There's no "kawaii" section of idol mags or manga shops or video rental places or clothing retailers or food or absolutely anything at all. There is no central authoritative body of work that can rule out something -not- being kawaii. Reading more than this into it is a common error of orientalism, the tendency of uninitiated Westerners to project novelty and significance onto elements of Asian culture beyond their true significance. The Crow 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a long-standing and well-know concept within Japanese culture and evidences itself by items such as Hello Kitty and similar fare. Inserting this into the "cuteness" article ignores the uniqueness of the Japanese concept. Jtmichcock 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a concept. Articles springing from Japanese culture are where we boast Japanese uniqueness.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How is "kawaii" not a concept? "Kawaii" is absolutely a concept; it's a concept of "cute" that permeates almost every aspect of Japanese culture. You can find it everywhere. You're talking about things of which you have no real experience. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As you seem intent on playing "I live in Japan so I know Japan" card, I guess I should also state (just for the record you understand) that I also live in Japan as I have done for a number of years now. I know of which I speak. Cuteness is very popular in Japan, but it's not a concept. It's an adjective, always used subjectively. Barryvalder 02:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete / Merge per the Crow. Freshgavin's and Barryvalder's points are both very good, although, I don't see a whole lot of salvageable non-OR to work with. Neier 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. Yes, I'm flip-flopping. Nihonjoe's comments regarding the length of Japanese culture is a good one. Also, the lack of non-OR in the current article is a better argument for rewrite than merge, anyway. I know that Kawaii is ingrained in the country. Pictures of the Hello Kitty festooned dump trucks working construction sites, or of the cartoon characters on the salaryman's bank book would help convey that point. There is encylcopedic material for Kawaii – unfortunately, the current article doesn't do a very good job at presenting it. And, it seems that attempts to fix the article are getting caught in some minor revert wars by a couple of users, so it may take some time to fix it. Neier 22:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Anime-brainwashed Keep! Kawaii is more than just a term- it is a veritable movement on par with, say, Gothic Lolita. --maru (talk) contribs 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This simply isn't the case. There is no kawaii movement. This implies there is a specific, definable kawaii style, which there isn't. Cuteness is highly valued in Japan and it has an impact on many aspects of Japanese culture, but suggesting it's a movement like Gothic Lolita is entirely without evidence or factual accuracy. Barryvalder 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and deletion nominators must attempt to be more cognisant of the source material they nominate. -Zero^Talk 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. wtf. find something worthy of deleting. aa v ^ 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Honestly I find this nomination somewhat worrying. People who come to an encyclopedia wanting to know the meaning and context of Kawaii in Japanese culture should be told, not directed to an entry in a dictionary. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - to the statement by nom that the Culture of Japan article "can be any length it needs to be", I do not agree. There is an optimum length which should be exceeded only with good reason, see Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Summary_style among other places. The article is not bad as is in its current state and I see no reason for a delete. Calling it "japancruft" seems rather pejorative. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and see what comes of it. I've got to admit to hearing this term since ... oh forever. Kim Bruning 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Deleting this article wouldn't be very cute. Cyde Weys 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — I see no reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - After seeing this article, I believe that Kawaii is already becoming an exotic, "you-found-it-here-first-in Wikipedia" type of a nouveau concept.... and not just for the otaku people either.--Endroit 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we close this yet? --maru (talk) contribs 07:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its obvious concensus is agaisnt the nominator. Prolonging the discussion would be quite pointless. -Zero^Talk 08:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the consensus is against a deletion. The strength of feeling in favour of a rewrite what comes across most strongly for me. Barryvalder 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone realizes that "rewrite" does not mean anything productive here. At best it means "do nothing" and at worst it means "add a lot of original research". I look forward to the vigorous participation of "keep" voters to remove the OR from the article as it is, and guard against addition of more OR. The Crow 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. — FireFox • T • 15:18, 19 February 2006

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.