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. 6 votes to KEEP, 1 votes to DELETE (nomination), and 1 possible DELETE. WP:NAD was advanced as argument for delete, but votes for KEEP have clearly demonstrated WP:WORDISSUBJECT with information that meets WP:V. Specifically, this word has been used as a subject in the United Nations by a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and in the cover story of a magazine. Consensus is KEEP. NON-ADMIN CLOSURE. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mottainai[edit]

Mottainai (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 WP:NAD violation. Mottainai is just a word. The etymology given is kind of interesting, even if note 3 has next to nothing to do with the subject. But I could write an article an any Japanese word and discuss the etymology in the same way. That would be an even worse violation of WP:NAD, though. I almost think this article is meant to be about the possibly-notable "Mottainai Campaign" whose homepage the article links to, but if so the article needs to be moved and completely rewritten, in which case we can just delete this dictionary entry for now anyway. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This seems to me to be just another blatant attempt to dignify yet another silly marketing campaign with a Wikipedia entry. For a complete workout of the gag reflex, check out the Japanese page: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/もったいない . It seems (caution:Godwin) that the whole thing could be derived from a Nazi thrift campaign... ah-oh... (see the "Kampf dem Verderb" section at the end.) Cypella (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 09:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Many references are available (WP:HASREFS), see for example Google Scholar and Google Book. And this is more than a definition (WP:NDEF), this has become an international concept [1]. --Edcolins (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of language-related deletion discussions. –Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above argument. HASREFS is a completely ridiculous argument here, since notability is not an argument being offered for deletion. If you want to create an article on the Mottainai Campaign, please move the page and rewrite the article to actually be about said campaign (mentioning it in the intro might be a start). 猿丸太夫 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misunderstood me. I referred to WP:HASREFS because in my opinion the article's topic is not mainly about a word but about a concept, and this concept meets the notability threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have expanded the article to highlight that the topic is a tradition, a cultural practice and a concept. More references are available to show this. I will try to expand the article further. I don't want to create an article about any specific campaign. Rather I think Wikipedia should have an article about the concept of Mottainai. --Edcolins (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possible Delete methinks... This may be an article with good intentions but misplaced aspirations. Unfortunately for Edcolins, no matter what you wanted to write about (I'm sorry, I haven't checked: your article?), the fact of the matter seems to be that the most notable aspect of what you wrote about is in fact that it's being adapted publicly as some sort of "campaign" to some extent, and most (all?) of the references seem to point to that more than anything. But this is set apart from a so-called cultural aspect as Kawaii culture in Japan, for example - an article which may be relevant here to give some context. I'm not praising the "Kawaii" article - thats an article full of fluff in need of sheering - but there's some precedence which may be useful here, though I'm not sure to which end. If it's that kind of cultural ideology you were aspiring to educate about, the references provided don't support the subject, or at least don't carry enough weight. It may be too much to call it a cultural "practice", giving undue weight to the subject; should there also be an article for "Gambatte!" or "Yasashii" or any other of the multitudinous polite auto-responses which Japanese people have for any given situation?? Regardless, even as a "campaign" I'm sorry but I also don't yet see notability; one person co-opting a common Japanese word does-not-a-campaign-make, and in that case the article may seem built to support/further the cause, which I'm sure violates any number of wiki guidelines. I haven't thoroughly gone over every last detail but this is my opinion based on initial review. Japanglish (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. First, this is not my article and no article is mine (WP:OWN). I only came here to improve the article, because I believe the topic is notable as a concept, not just as a word. Secondly, please look at the references provided in the article (see for example: (NPR, 2013), (Los Tiempos, 2009), (The Japan Times, 2013), (MacQuillan, 1998), (Sasaki, 2005), (Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 2005), (Look Japan, 2002), (Iwatsuki, 2008)). The topic is not only notable because Wangari Maathai used the concept in a "campaign", as you seem to suggest, but the fact that she used it certainly does not make the concept less notable. The concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore meets Wikipedia:Notability. Thirdly, you think that "It may be too much to call it a cultural "practice"". Well, that's your opinion. The Spanish-language reference (Los Tiempos, 2009) explicitly uses that term "práctica cultural" (English: cultural practice). Fourthly, you are sure that "the article (...) violates any number of wiki guidelines". Could you be more specific? --Edcolins (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Edcolins (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is more than just a simple definition. Passes all requirements to be a Wikipedia article. A lot of work has been done on the article since it was nominated. [2] Any problems you have can be solved through proper editing procedures. There is a lot of coverage of this word appearing in a Highbeam search[3]. International Herald Tribune says there is a "pervasive use of the expression mottainai". The expression is explained in many articles about various things. Dream Focus 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."[4] Since the nominator did not do so, I have taken the liberty to do so myself. --Edcolins (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep It started out as just a phrase but Wangari Maathai refined it into a cultural concept. The campaign is a subset of the concept itself. Shii (tock) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Deep Keep. Anyone with knowledge of Japanese culture instantly realizes the necessity of keeping and expanding this article. This is the kind of overzealous AfD that turns knowledgeable editors away from Wikipedia. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep far more than just a simple definition. Cavarrone 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, already has more content than a simple dictionary definition, with ample cites. Don't know why deletion is even raised as an issue here. Don't we have better things to do? Reify-tech (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2013 (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.