Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mama-san

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 regular keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mama-san

Mama-san (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Term appears notable:

  • It is used in a cover story about Child Slavery on TIMEasia.com [1].
  • It can also be founder here [2].
  • It also appears to be used in the paper, "Adolescent prostitution in Canada and the Philippines: Statistical comparisons, an ethnographic account and policy options" by Christopher Bagley of Department of Social Work, University of Southampton, UK [3] (unfortunately the text is subscription only).

Use seems wider than a mere neologism and has a culturally irony given the use of a honourific. It is not presently a dicdef and can in any event be expanded. Quality of article is no reason for deletion. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, external links now added, including Time magazine's, also wikified & copyedited a bit now. SkierRMH 10:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.

  • Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep References have been added; certainly not a neologism. Akihabara 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [4] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [5]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a dicdef. Current version meets accetability criteria. Mallanox 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per nominator's rubberstamping. ThuranX 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, of which I have not seen a clearer case. Bad faith nom. Article is encyclopaedic. Very well known term. Looking at the other articles being put up, it appears that CyberAnth may be a member of the moral majority. Ohconfucius 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Edited Ohconfucius 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Mama-san has got to be one of the first three sociological terms any researcher of modern Japanese culture stumbles across. Definitely notable, definitely not a neo-logism, and definitely plenty of other things I wont even go into. The only comment I have regarding this article is that it is surprisingly short given the sheer sociological importance and wide usage of the word. TomorrowTime 12:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Tomorrowtime. skip (t / c) 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
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.