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 speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ― Padenton|✉   22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baka (word)[edit]

Baka (word) (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)

Clear failure of WP:NOTDICT. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Edit: No objection to Redirect to wiktionary entry or article rewrite (added 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)) ― Padenton|✉   16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this goes far beyond a simple dictionary entry. This is discussing the concept more than just giving a definition. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article in question is not substituting for a dictionary entry, it's a full on article about the word. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could you provide an example of where it discusses the concept? The sections in this article: History, etymology, related words, meanings, usages, pragmatics, these are all things that belong in a dictionary. It's an excellent, thorough entry, but I'm not seeing where it crosses over from being a dictionary into being encyclopedic content. ― Padenton|✉   18:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go read the article. The entire thing is discussing the word as a concept. A dictionary entry looks like this: wikt:ばか. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Statements like "Baka, which originated as a 14th-century literary insult, has become "the most commonly used" swearword in contemporary Japanese", "The linguistic pragmatics of using insults like baka can be language specific. For instance, Japanese has fewer words for calling someone a "fool" than English", and "During World War II, baka was American military slang for the Japanese Ohka 櫻花 (lit. "Cherry Blossom") kamikaze flying bomb" go well beyond dictionary information. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. The term appears to have a significant notability that goes beyond its definition; also, not that this makes it automatically notable, but there are six other Wikipedia articles in other languages about this word (Russian, Spanish, German, Chinese etc). The Japanese article in particular is significantly lengthy, which in my view is a good indicator of prominence. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly not a dictionary definition. Since when did dictionaries have detailed descriptions on etymology, history and cultural context? Just like our encyclopedia articles on thou, you, irregardless, hello, comprised of, fuck and shit, if there is content which focuses outside of the traditional scope of a dictionary, then it is an encyclopedia article and not a dictionary definition entry. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:19, 5 May 2015 (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.