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. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diaosi[edit]

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

Non-English neologism that fails notability D P 00:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can understand some of the issues, however, if Japanese Otaku is considered acceptable, I would think that the Chinese Diaosi would fit in as well. I for one welcome the opportunity to understand more about this part of one of the world's largest population groups.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wouldn't calling it a "Non-English neologism" be a form of systemic bias? We have all sorts of articles about concepts for the western world, but when a Chinese social term is introduced, it's deemed as non-notable? Think about it, this term is by no means "non-notable" - I know that WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't an absolute measure of notability, however "屌丝" gives 30,400,000 google results; the majority of Chinese people don't even use Google, they use Baidu -- a Baidu search brings back 100,000,000 results. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seems like an obvious keep. This "non-English neologism" is already supported by six different English-language sources that are directly about it, and we could find hundreds more in Chinese. The article does have issues, but notability is clearly not one of them. Madalibi (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some work, but it should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a "non-English" topic is of absolutely no consequence at all and it certainly is not a valid reason for deletion. The English Wikipedia has millions of articles about subjects with no connection to the English language or the Anglo-Saxon culture in the broad sense. The claim that it fails notability is simply evidence that the nominator doesn't understand the policy, the references are solid, and they're even in English. Suggest the nonminator studies WP:Systemic bias and WP:Notability as this nomination has no merit at all. BTW the writing style and grammar issues are fixable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Pleanty of reliable sources. I see no reason why it should be deleted.Makro (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You would have to delete the one in the Chinese Wikipedia too, Just because it isn't primarily English means that you delete it. What if everybody in China just suddenly forgot how to speak their language and had to learn EnglishWikiOriginal-9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 24 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.