Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baka (fool)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baka (fool)

Baka (fool) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOT#DICT: The subject is unencyclopedic. No inline citation, and none of the sources are verifiable. An online search confirms the poor encyclopedic value of the subject. AshLey ^Msg 12:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about a word more than its meaning and definitions. But I guess the article can be modified and I see that the article is encyclopedic. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 13:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The sources are cited inline, and are verifiable - The article uses WP:HARVARD citation style, which is not the most common, but is an accepted standard.
  The topic (as with all topics) is 'encyclopedic' if there are enough RSs to write an article, and in this case there might be. It may need cleanup, and improvement, but it doesn't definitely require deletion. —Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sources are verifiable. Subject matter is not gutter slang but repeatedly appears in historical references and literature going back to Qin Dynasty. Weak results in English language search and a virtual copy-paste translation of the Japanese Wikipedia page for the same subject [1] do not mean there is an absence of worthwhile sources. This article needs refinement, not an AfD nomination. Jun Kayama 01:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I was expecting to find an elaborated dictionary entry, as I couldn't imagine what else could be said about 馬鹿. But the source by Michael Carr, at least, suggests that there may be something to say about this word as a word, separate from content on the concept of fools. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cnilep. Also this needs to be renamed to Baka (word) or Baka (term), as it is about a word, not a fool. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else. This is a notable word, has been the subject of reliable coverage, and is a major part of Japanese culture. Of course, it could be moved to Baka (word) since it's about the word and not about the concept of a fool. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since all three reasons given for deletion are untrue, I wonder if this nomination was a mistake or <grin> perhaps an ironic bakarashii joke. Agree that Baka (word) would be a better title. Keahapana (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2012 (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.