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The result was Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator). -- Nyttend ( talk) 04:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Mottainai Grandma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article was originally created to make a point and was done so clumsily (it originally called the short picture book a "bestselling novel", referred to the word mottainai as a "concept" (which the creator insisted was different from a common word, with the opposite meaning of the common word), etc., and included closely paraphrased text. The book is not noteworthy in itself (the linked Japanese article is about the character, who in Japan has appeared in more than a dozen books) and because of the dearth of sources saying a whole lot about it our article is set to remain a microstub indefinitely. A merge/redirect to Mottainai, or a hypothetical article on either the author or the character would be acceptable, but I can't see this article surviving as it is. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn Okay, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. Ironic that I should have to strike my OP comment when it seems like no one actually read it, as they have been arguing against an OP comment I didn't make ("This page should be deleted and nothing put in its place"). Once again, the false "keep/delete" dichotomy has screwed things up, and will no doubt be used in the near future as a pretext for compromising the credibility of the encyclopedia by reinstating content that was already removed from the other article of which this is a POVFORK. I'm withdrawing before more people get roped into inadvertently !voting for that outcome. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article was not made to make a point, as I pointed out previously. I have created articles for books previously that I saw mention of that didn't have articles yet. It meets the general notability guidelines, so should be kept. Note you forgot to inform the creator of the article of this deletion discussion on my talk page. Dream Focus 16:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Dream Focus: That the article was not created to make a point is not really an argument in favour of keeping. I mentioned it above because that the article was created to make a point (an irrefutable claim, it would seem) explains why the article as it exists is so abysmal, and why its author (you) didn't check before creating it that it could one day be made less abysmal. I am not obliged to inform you of the article coming to AFD, and even if you didn't have the page watchlisted you should have seen it coming because I PRODded it a few days back and did notify you then. Basically what I am saying is that half of your comment seems to be more about defending your (frankly atrocious) behaviour in the discussion that led to the article's creation and getting jabs in at me than in defending the topic's viability as a standalone article. The fact is that three months after it being pointed out to you that your original article was one of the most abysmal pieces ever published by a long-term Wikipedian you have made no attempt to improve it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 21:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

BTW, the only part of your comment that looks like a valid AFD argument references GNG, but GNG requires sufficient sources to write an article on the topic that is not a microstub, not (as you seem to think) some arbitrary number of sources that mention the topic. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep—the article was definitely created out of bad faith and was badly done, but that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of its exitence. The article passes WP:GNG, though it needs more work (like on the fact that it's a series). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Curly Turkey: But wouldn't the fact that it's a series make it a different topic? The first book is so short, and sources discussing it so bare, that what's already in the article is all that could likely be written about it. As I said, I'd be cool with it being merged into a hypothetical article (read: moved) on the author or the character, or I guess the series. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 21:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

(a) the series is called Mottainai Bāsan (one of the books is the bāsan reprimanding children for being mottainai with their food) (b) the first book has gotten almost all the coverage.

The article could be refocused, expanded, rewritten—but not moved. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - As mentioned above it passes WP:GNG. Plus the article was modified and notable references were added. Sindanna ( talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— Sindanna ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

@ Sindanna: Please refrain from referring to your own edits in that manner (it would be better if you said "I modified ...", "I added ..."). Anyway, I have reverted your edits as containing similar close paraphrasing to what was previously rev-delled. Apart from the close paraphrasing issue, inline attribution would be required when talking about such questionably specific interpretations of what is in reality a very short, simple picture book. If teaching children about hygiene and environmental awareness was JICA's goal in releasing the book in India, then we should say that, but unfortunately the press-release-like source you cited does not specify that so we can't, and we definitely shouldn't be citing JICA's 2018 goal in releasing the book on the Indian market as though it was Shinju's original intent in writing the book more than a decade earlier, or was even something that was explicitly a part of the book itself. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Also: brand new editors really shouldn't be !voting in AFDs, and should disclose that by !voting in one they are not involved in they are essentially "returning the favour" to another editor who !voted to "rescue" an article they were involved in. [1] Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Jesus. I didn't even notice this source: referring to a children's picture book as a "parenting book" with "a plethora of topics that help parents make sure their children learn ‘good habits’ at young age" (wording that, if not accompanied by an image that explicitly contradicted it, would imply the book was a parenting guide) is extremely dubious, and any Wikipedia editor who takes such a source at face value should probably be cautioned about being more careful. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• There is no rule against newer editors participating in AFDS. Sindanna managed to find some more reliable sources giving significant coverage to this book. The Asian Age [2], ABC Online [3], and I'm not sure about Business Wire India [4]. Is that one just a press release, or do they rewrite the information themselves? But the other two certainly add to the fact it obviously passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

DF, you've participated in a lot of AFDs before, so I expect you know that GNG is about having enough sources to build an article, and it doesn't matter whether said sources are technically "independent" or not. Additionally, bullshit fringe sources about "ancient Chinese secrets" like that ABC Online source simply cannot be used for anything, GNG or no. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Heck, given the close parallels in content and even wording with our article of that time (mottainai also has ties with Shinto animism, the idea that all objects have a spirit — or kami is attributed to "Yuko Kawanishi, a sociologist at Tokyo Gakugei University", but the author clearly didn't interview Kawanishi himself as his wording is almost identical to ours), and the fact that it explicitly admits to using images from Wikimedia Commons (actually almost certainly English Wikipedia), I wouldn't be surprised if this was a case of WP:CITOGENESIS, and hence WP:CIRCULAR. Essentially, this comes across as your attempting to use your Mottainai Grandma article as a WP:POVFORK to reintroduce content that consensus already removed from the Mottainai artice. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I never tried to keep or reintroduce any Shinto animism into that article, so as usual, your delusional conspiracy theories make absolutely no sense a tall. I have a long history of creating articles for books I found coverage of, this had nothing to do with that other article. Dream Focus 01:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Anyone can Ctrl+F Talk:Mottainai (and your forum-shopped RSN thread, etc.) for "concept" and see you arguing endlessly about preserving the orientalist nonsense that constituted the core of that article. You even fought to cite that ABC article specifically, and now you are doing the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I never said anything about "Shinto", only that multiple sources called it a concept. Others argued that point. Dream Focus 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Dream Focus: don't stir this pot again. We've established that your creating the article was extremely WP:POINTy and done in bad faith. The article can still be salvaged despite that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 04:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You and one other claiming something does not establish it. While looking for something else, I found a book that was mentioned in reliable sources, so I made an article for it, simple as that. I have done this many times over the years with other books, comic books, and any other random thing I come across. [5] I read an article about a virus or bacteria, I make articles for it. Any random thing, just what I do. So kindly stop with your ridiculous accusation. There was nothing that could be gained by making this article. Dream Focus 05:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Dream Focus—"one other"? Who? You mean Imaginatorium, Nishidani, Hijiri, or ... ? Come on, drop the stick already. You've made a big enough mess. You stepped into an area you didn't understand, which is fine. What's not fine is digging in your heels and interfering when others came to clean up your mess. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 06:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't recall any but two of you claiming this article was pointy. I still have no idea what point you think was being made though. And how exactly am I interfering with others editing this article? I don't see how me creating a perfectly valid stub article is a "big enough mess". You seem to be having some imaginary battle in your head. Dream Focus 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So you're digging in. No surprise. Don't count on any assumptions of good faith from here on. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

DF, you are missing the point. I gave that Shinto quote as evidence that the source you want to cite was dependent on Wikipedia, or more specifically on Wikipedia content that consensus had already decided to excise. I never said anything about you adding stuff about Shinto to this article. Your misinterpreting this twice in a row despite my having been clear enough the first time indicates that you are deliberately playing dumb in order to game the system. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You are certainly not being clear with your vague random nonsense. You could've just said you don't believe one source is valid, and it was once upon a time used in this other article also for something totally unrelated. Your conspiracy theory that somehow referencing it in this article would somehow slip it over there for something totally unrelated that I never once commented on or tried to add, is just total nonsense. Dream Focus 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Just for the record, since the nom made a claim about the linked Japanese article, here is a translation of the first section.
  

The article goes on to list other books in the series, along with CDs and a DVD. It's something of a franchise.

About "to make a point", someone should note that the nom is a party to a content dispute at the main article. At issue is whether the term "mottainai" has a depth of meaning not present in similar words from other languages, as claimed by the late environmental minister from Kenya, and if so whether that depth of meaning is rooted in Japanese religion. The nom has taken the other side, for example by deleting the entire etymology section, which seems to me like a pretty highhanded way to say that you don't think the word's history is important.

Obviously these issues can't be settled here. And unfortunately right now I'm not in a position to use bandwidth on a topic like this. But I'm confident that Japanese sources exist for all of the statements quoted above. Nor do I see any reason why the article can't be about the book, the character, and the entire series. Hence I'm !voting keep.–  Margin1522 ( talk) 01:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Margin1522: I'm genuinely surprised to see you here at all, let alone wretching up the old "content dispute" on the main article -- I thought you stormed away from that in a huff after being threatened with a block for repeated, unapologetic plagiarism. The simple fact is that it's extremely difficult to write any of the stuff you, and DF, and now Sindanna have been adding in your own words, either because it's garbage and you know it, and don't want to "own" it with an accurate paraphrase, or because you don't know it and so are unable to accurately paraphrase.

As for the content of the ja.wiki article: As is quite often the case, the ja.wiki article is essentially unsourced, and so is useless, but per my OP comment and my reply to CT above, arguing that the page should be retitled and refocused to look more like the Japanese article isn't actually a "keep" argument but a "merge" or "rename" argument.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

As for a pretty highhanded way to say that you don't think the word's history is important -- that's bogus, and you know it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Margin1522: Your "keep" rationale is awfully WP:POINTy. Should we point out that you also took sides in the content dispute?

Also keep in mind that the J-article is entirely uncited. As I've pointed out, there are RSes out there, but we should restrict this article to what the RSes say and ignore the uncited J-article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 04:01, 24 May 2018 (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.