Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kancho (5th nomination)

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 no consensus. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho

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

This is a barebones WP:DICDEF on a topic for which there is no serious discourse. Coverage on other language projects is minimal, even at the Japanese Wikipedia where there's just a list of works of fiction where it is performed. Knowledge of this in English is limited to these "popular culture" segments and the article previously featured such content until it was cut down to its stub state long after the AFDs several years ago. Our standards on content have changed since then, and it's time for this to go. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article has been kept four times before, I don't see how we'd get rid of it now. This seems more like a keep and improve. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, our standards on inclusion have changed over the years.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may have asserted that, but with no support regarding ~how~ they have changed or how these changes would apply to keeping/deleting this article, which has been nominated for deletion four times already and consistently been kept. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conceding that my opinion is a minority one based on previous AfDs, this doesn't seem to ring the notability bell. RS sourcing is thin at best. Only two sources are cited and the NY Times source provides only incidental mention. My take is that it lack both WP:N and WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I'm against keeping dictionary-like articles as a general rule, but kancho is pretty well-known nowadays (as attested to by there being Wikipedia articles for it in 11 different languages). We have an article for "wedgie", so I can't see a reason not to keep kancho. Nominated for deletion many times in the past and always kept. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The improvements made to this page have been turning it into the stub you're reading now. It is only known because of anime fans. Its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan. Just because there are a bunch of old AFDs that closed as keep 5 years ago and 4 years ago, and the mere existence of what appears to be equally as subpar articles on other language projects does not mean it's notable according to this project's guidelines anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan" is debatable. FBOFW, I'd have to agree with Bueller 007 that Wedgie is a good comparison. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Existing as a common practice does not mean it's notable for coverage, particularly when its notability is only supported by its use in cartoons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly comment. I've personally seen this schoolchildren do this to each other and had this done to me by schoolchildren in Japan. It's not used only in cartoons, and even if it were, that wouldn't be any reason to delete it. Everyone in Japan knows what this term means, and as I said above, there are Wikipedia pages in 11 other languages for カンチョー. This act is widely known. If it somehow differs from wedgie (other than its country of origin), explain how or else I think you should also nominate wedgie for deletion and see how that goes. In addition, there are plenty of non-cartoon Google Image hits in Japanese [1], so claiming that "Its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan" is quite questionable. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are we to know that their articles on this subject are not as poorly writen as our own? And just because it is a Japanese word does not mean we cover it here. Thats Wiktionary's job. There's no cultural context here. It exists but is not something that can adequately be covered unless you go "it shows up in this cartoon".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is not a term just for anime fans. It is a general term, known by all Japanese, used in TV comedy, anime, manga, and children's (and even adult) play. I checked the Asahi Shinbun database, and it, for instance, has an article on 2008.5.31 on children still using the term. There's another article on 2012.9.14 on an IBM employee charged with sexual harassment doing "kancho" on female employees. There's also another article on "kancho" on 1992.7.17. A search of the Oya Soichi database finds 13 articles since 1998 in the weekly tabloids with "kancho" in the title (in the meaning given in the article), including a number on how Kazuhiro Kiyohara liked to do it a lot. There are plenty of RS in the mainstream media in Japan that show this is not just a popular term, but a popular phenomenon. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator, and for reasons of WP:NAD, WP:PERMASTUB, WP:GNG. This belongs in Urban Dictionary, not WP. mikeman67 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems similar to the Fark meme UFIA. Could be combined with that to form a slightly larger stub. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 2nd AfD discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a 5 year old AFD still have meaning here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the age, its just the most substantive discussion prior to this one for meeting notability. Its notability is similar to Wedgie although some sources are not in english.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 12 March 2014 (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.