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. Of note is that the nominator stated in a later comment, "you've pushed me to a Weak Keep on this article with strong support for an eventual merge with a more global article if one were to be created." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialtainer[edit]

Socialtainer (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)

Delete as per WP:NAD. Additionally, not a noteworthy enough term to warrant handling via transwiki, in my opinion. It hasn't significantly made its way into the English language from what I can find via search. BU Rob13 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have found and added some more English language media sources, and feel this stub can be expanded further. It's a derivative of two English words, and it's popular usage and the Korean penchant for throwing in English words in their conversations, may qualify it as an international crossover word, (however it was derived - first in Korean, or in English). It certainly is being used abundantly in Korea, and due to it's being a hot button word for controversy, all the more reason it is interesting and notable.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The majority of the article remains something that is more suited for a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia, although with the additional sources I could agree that it should be subject to the transwiki process potentially rather than outright deleted. A wiktionary entry for "socialtainer" wouldn't be misplaced. The controversy has some substance, but I don't believe it alone achieves notability to warrant its own article. Celebrity could always be expanded to provide a more worldwide perspective on the role of celebrity in social and political issues, including the Korean idea of a socialtainer. BU Rob13 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've plodded along and found an academic look at it, by Dongguk University. You may re-read the updates. I looked over Socialite on WP to see if there are any means of comparison, however, this popular wording is not nearly as old, and is currently limited to the small country of South Korea. I'm still hopeful for consensus to keep, however.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely agree with you that Socialite is not a good fit. It seems these are more entertainer/activists than socialites, which is something prevalent in most cultures but that we don't have significant coverage on in a single page in Wikipedia. BU Rob13 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you hit on what I was looking for, comparative cultures that use similar words for the same thing, that might help expand the page (which activist and philanthropist don't quite describe), but which this page might just be a start for....Anyway, I find it intriguing and will keep researching. And the social responses to it are mixed. If we had a page or name for it in English, it might well be called "Jane Fonda". I find the responses to it in the gradually opening closed society of Korea very interesting. But heck, I personally haven't resolved my issues over Tom Cruise and Scientology, or Charlton Heston and gun control...

One other page, I looked at, for a newly created "English" word was Sasaeng fan which deals with a Korean subject, but the word is based on a Korean word - not as in this case, on two English ones. The other page I looked at was Gigolo which was a French based word that must have gotten a start somewhere to become part of the English lexicon (if I'm using that word correctly).

I feel forever behind - for a Korean talk show that I created and update, one savy Korean editor updated the weekly topic with Lookism with the link to the page. I realized, as an English speaker, that I was aware of the theory for years, but didn't realize it had been given a name.

So, with this page, I wasn't surprised to find I'd never heard the expression, but felt inclined to remain open to it's possibilities. If it was just a "buzzword" it will go away, but even the amount of publicity it has already received, I feel, warrants my recognition.

Can I say here, I love WP because of discussions like we are having! Thank you!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely agree it has the potential to be notable one day. For every Gigolo, though, there are many other terms that never fully cross over culturally or gain traction over a long period of time. If we were debating whether this term should be in an English-language dictionary, I'd say that WP:TOOSOON applies, as a result. Until the word takes some hold, I don't think the word itself is worth noting in a dictionary. That's kind of besides the point, though, since this is an encyclopedia.
  The content of this article is notable in the sense that there should be an article in the project about the role of celebrities in social issues and the controversy that causes. It's an important cultural topic that I think easily warrants an article. With your substantial edits, I think that this article is now substantial enough to warrant a section in some article titled something like "Celebrity activists," which could discuss this in a larger global context. Since no such article exists yet, and I'm nowhere near expert enough on this cultural issue to create one, you've pushed me to a Weak Keep on this article with strong support for an eventual merge with a more global article if one were to be created. We can wait to see if anyone chimes in with different opinions, but I expect that idea is uncontroversial with your additional edits. Props on finding those sources, by the way. I searched for a while and wasn't finding much in English at all. BU Rob13 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are very gracious to understand what I was trying to say. It's weird how we are so limited to online sources, when my history in research was printed copy. Every now and then I find a Google book or something akin to a real book to reference. I'm attuned to "proper sources" for Korean articles, participating on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea and a blanket search can yield lots of crazy stuff. I haven't searched this one in Korean language, and know it is inundated with references that are acceptable on most Korean related articles. I appreciate you pushing me to continue the search in English. Time and other editors will see if we bought the winning ticket.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable term in South Korean show business. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 04:33, 22 June 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.