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 merge into an yet to be discussed article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneesama[edit]

Oneesama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prod was opposed, nomination is next step. Article, IMO, fails WP:N and WP:RS (lack of independent and reliable sources), and raises concerns about WP:OR (original research/analysis yielding an opinion), WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a usage guide) and WP:SOAP (opinion piece with numerous subjective claims that are not sourced). Opposition to prod states that article reaches beyond dictionary definition, but there really is little more IMO that an encyclopedic article on "Oneesama" can address beyond a clear-cut definition without requiring an analysis and, by extension, sources for such analysis. Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the unsourced original research from the article which leaves very little. Edward321 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic entry to me. If there are other pages named "oneesan" or "oneechan" or "oneesama", etc. then we could make this into a redirect. However, I don't see anything of the sort when I search, so I say we soft redirect this page. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Japanese honorifics Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is the perfect entry for there, but lacks enough substance to be an article here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about creating an article on Japanese kinship terms and merging it there? It can include familiar and honorific forms for various words as well as descriptions of when they are used. Fg2 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that sort of article be notable in the Japanese Wikipedia? If so, that might be fine. However, I don't see how that kind of article dealing with any culture (even if we changed it to kinship terms in English-speaking culture) would be notable or would avoid WP:NOT concerns (Wikipedia is not a usage guide). --Roehl Sybing (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article on an aspect of a language isn't usage guide, no more than the article on Japanese honorifics is. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does not adequately answer the question I posed. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fg2: I was actually contemplating expanding a different direction, documenting the soeur system from Maria-sama ga Miteru and attempts to reproduce it in real life. Aside from seeing message boards and LJ communities dedicated to it, though, I've not yet found [[WP:RS|reliable sources on the real-life aspects, though I may not be looking in the right places. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Japanese honorifics, possibly copy to Wiktionary as well. Not notable enough as a term in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Japanese titles. The word is just a variation of 姉/big sister when talking about or speaking to. Oda Mari (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per as per Terraxos, Oda Mari and Chris (クリス • フィッチ) --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. as others have mentioned, this has become a stock element of areas like galges, moe, and so on. Cliche, convention, or whatever you want to call it, it's not 'just' a random honorific or title. --Gwern (contribs) 21:04 30 January 2008 (GMT)
• Merge. An individual page are nonsense without another related terms in the same page. Keep is impossible. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (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.