577:
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.
1028:, or more specifically on Knowledge 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.
238:
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.
1169:
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"
1134:
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
970:
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
1139:
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,
463:
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
1161:
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
359:
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
202:
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
909:
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
364:
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.
237:
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"
1047:
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
576:
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
315:
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
1122:
is a best-selling picture book by Mariko Shinju. It was published in 2004 by
Kodansha and has sold more than 700,000 copies. The character is popular and has appeared in various newspapers and magazines, including the Asahi Elementary School Newspaper, the Mainichi daily newspaper, children's
626:: 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
761:
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
805:
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.
838:(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.
384:
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.
1135:
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.
953:, 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.
360:
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
596:
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
913:
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.
162:
1162:
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
1113:
Mottainai
Grandma is a character who, when a child does something wasteful, appears out of somewhere saying "Mottainaaai!", and proceeds to show how doing things the clever old way can prevent waste.
678:
728:
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
156:
261:
732:"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.
115:
408:
661:
There is no rule against newer editors participating in AFDS. Sindanna managed to find some more reliable sources giving significant coverage to this book.
431:—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
295:
278:
665:
911:
680:. 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
572:
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
1126:
The book has been published in a bilingual
English/Japanese version and has been translated into Korean, Chinese (China and Taiwan), and Thai.
671:
355:
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
122:
88:
83:
623:
92:
211:, 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.
75:
1048:
somehow slip it over there for something totally unrelated that I never once commented on or tried to add, is just total nonsense.
554:
177:
630:
dubious, and any Knowledge editor who takes such a source at face value should probably be cautioned about being more careful.
17:
1099:
Just for the record, since the nom made a claim about the linked Japanese article, here is a translation of the first section.
144:
1206:
1181:
1037:
847:
795:
741:
639:
612:
586:
550:
473:
394:
374:
247:
221:
138:
198:
and was done so clumsily (it originally called the short picture book a "bestselling novel", referred to the word
1259:
857:
I never said anything about "Shinto", only that multiple sources called it a concept. Others argued that point.
36:
1258:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1242:
1211:
1186:
1149:
1130:
The article goes on to list other books in the series, along with CDs and a DVD. It's something of a franchise.
1071:
1042:
1011:
994:
965:
937:
904:
880:
852:
829:
800:
746:
707:
644:
617:
591:
537:
510:
478:
447:
420:
399:
379:
339:
304:
287:
270:
252:
226:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
134:
1230:
RSes out there, but we should restrict this article to what the RSes say and ignore the uncited J-article.
1237:
1006:
960:
899:
505:
442:
79:
1024:
DF, you are missing the point. I gave that Shinto quote as evidence that the source you want to cite was
184:
1025:
767:
1145:
416:
299:
282:
265:
204:
170:
1203:
1178:
1034:
946:
844:
792:
771:
738:
636:
609:
583:
546:
533:
470:
391:
371:
244:
218:
999:
So you're digging in. No surprise. Don't count on any assumptions of good faith from here on.
150:
1231:
1000:
954:
893:
779:
775:
758:
mottainai also has ties with Shinto animism, the idea that all objects have a spirit — or kami
499:
458:
436:
71:
63:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
888:: don't stir this pot again. We've established that your creating the article was extremely
203:
dozen books) and because of the dearth of sources saying a whole lot about it our article is
1049:
972:
942:
915:
885:
858:
807:
685:
350:
317:
1220:
1216:
1156:
1141:
889:
412:
195:
1123:
magazines (Otomodachi, Genki), and the Environmental Ministry's Children's Eco-club News.
950:
835:
361:
1226:
Also keep in mind that the J-article is entirely uncited. As I've pointed out, there
1198:
1173:
1029:
839:
787:
733:
681:
674:
662:
631:
604:
578:
567:
542:
529:
525:
465:
432:
386:
366:
239:
213:
1194:
a pretty highhanded way to say that you don't think the word's history is important
49:
109:
668:
783:
208:
199:
892:
and done in bad faith. The article can still be salvaged despite that.
1223:. Should we point out that you also took sides in the content dispute?
495:
with their food) (b) the first book has gotten almost all the coverage.
407:
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
528:. Plus the article was modified and notable references were added.
498:
The article could be refocused, expanded, rewritten—but not moved.
435:, though it needs more work (like on the fact that it's a series).
751:
Heck, given the close parallels in content and even wording with
1252:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
774:. Essentially, this comes across as your attempting to use your
782:
to reintroduce content that consensus already removed from the
763:
752:
602:
573:
105:
101:
97:
169:
464:
the author or the character, or I guess the series.
1166:
know it and so are unable to accurately paraphrase.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
766:), I wouldn't be surprised if this was a case of
362:the discussion that led to the article's creation
1262:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1140:and the entire series. Hence I'm !voting keep.–
294:Note: This discussion has been included in the
277:Note: This discussion has been included in the
260:Note: This discussion has been included in the
262:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
183:
8:
1170:argument but a "merge" or "rename" argument.
971:having some imaginary battle in your head.
406:
296:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
293:
279:list of India-related deletion discussions
276:
259:
409:list of content for rescue consideration
1192:
756:
205:set to remain a microstub indefinitely
316:deletion discussion on my talk page.
7:
1219:: Your "keep" rationale is awfully
1197:-- that's bogus, and you know it.
24:
491:reprimanding children for being
524:- As mentioned above it passes
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
945:—"one other"? Who? You mean
1:
48:(withdrawn by nominator). --
622:Jesus. I didn't even notice
1279:
673:, and I'm not sure about
487:(one of the books is the
483:(a) the series is called
1255:Please do not modify it.
1243:04:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
1212:02:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
1187:02:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
1150:01:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
1072:13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
1043:06:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
1012:01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
995:13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
966:06:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
938:05:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
905:04:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
881:02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
853:02:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
830:01:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
801:01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
747:23:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
708:15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
645:14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
618:14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
592:14:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
538:13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
511:22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
479:21:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
448:20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
421:17:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
400:21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
380:21:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
340:16:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
305:12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
288:12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
271:12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
253:02:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
227:11:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
58:04:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
196:created to make a point
194:Article was originally
1026:dependent on Knowledge
207:. A merge/redirect to
555:few or no other edits
557:outside this topic.
1110:About the character
1232:Curly "JFC" Turkey
1001:Curly "JFC" Turkey
955:Curly "JFC" Turkey
894:Curly "JFC" Turkey
834:Anyone can Ctrl+F
500:Curly "JFC" Turkey
437:Curly "JFC" Turkey
1209:
1184:
1127:
1040:
850:
798:
776:Mottainai Grandma
764:English Knowledge
744:
642:
615:
589:
558:
476:
423:
397:
377:
307:
290:
273:
250:
224:
72:Mottainai Grandma
64:Mottainai Grandma
1270:
1257:
1236:
1202:
1177:
1160:
1120:Mottanai Grandma
1103:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1033:
1005:
991:
988:
985:
982:
979:
976:
959:
934:
931:
928:
925:
922:
919:
898:
877:
874:
871:
868:
865:
862:
843:
826:
823:
820:
817:
814:
811:
791:
737:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
635:
608:
582:
571:
540:
504:
469:
462:
441:
390:
370:
354:
336:
333:
330:
327:
324:
321:
302:
285:
268:
243:
217:
188:
187:
173:
125:
113:
95:
34:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1260:deletion review
1253:
1234:
1154:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1003:
989:
986:
983:
980:
977:
974:
957:
932:
929:
926:
923:
920:
917:
896:
875:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
824:
821:
818:
815:
812:
809:
702:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
565:
502:
485:Mottainai Bāsan
456:
439:
348:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
319:
300:
283:
266:
130:
121:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1276:
1274:
1265:
1264:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1224:
1214:
1189:
1171:
1167:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1118:
1116:About the book
1114:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
836:Talk:Mottainai
768:WP:CITOGENESIS
755:of that time (
749:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
594:
560:
559:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
496:
451:
450:
425:
424:
404:
403:
402:
382:
343:
342:
309:
308:
291:
274:
257:
256:
255:
191:
190:
127:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1275:
1263:
1261:
1256:
1250:
1249:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1213:
1208:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1190:
1188:
1183:
1180:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1158:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1111:
1106:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1039:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
993:
992:
969:
968:
967:
964:
963:
956:
952:
948:
947:Imaginatorium
944:
941:
940:
939:
936:
935:
912:
910:come across.
908:
907:
906:
903:
902:
895:
891:
887:
884:
883:
882:
879:
878:
856:
855:
854:
849:
846:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
828:
827:
804:
803:
802:
797:
794:
789:
785:
781:
778:article as a
777:
773:
769:
765:
760:
759:
754:
750:
748:
743:
740:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
709:
706:
705:
683:
679:
676:
675:Business Wire
672:
670:
666:
664:
663:The Asian Age
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
646:
641:
638:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
614:
611:
606:
603:
600:
595:
593:
588:
585:
580:
575:
569:
564:
563:
562:
561:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
512:
509:
508:
501:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
475:
472:
467:
460:
455:
454:
453:
452:
449:
446:
445:
438:
434:
430:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
401:
396:
393:
388:
383:
381:
376:
373:
368:
363:
358:
352:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
338:
337:
314:
311:
310:
306:
303:
297:
292:
289:
286:
280:
275:
272:
269:
263:
258:
254:
249:
246:
241:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
223:
220:
215:
212:
210:
206:
201:
197:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
124:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1254:
1251:
1238:
1227:
1193:
1163:
1119:
1115:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1096:
1050:
1007:
973:
961:
916:
900:
859:
808:
770:, and hence
757:
729:
686:
627:
601:involved in.
598:
521:
506:
492:
488:
484:
459:Curly Turkey
443:
428:
356:
318:
312:
234:
193:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
943:Dream Focus
886:Dream Focus
772:WP:CIRCULAR
753:our article
730:technically
624:this source
553:) has made
351:Dream Focus
157:free images
46:Speedy Keep
1217:Margin1522
1157:Margin1522
1142:Margin1522
780:WP:POVFORK
669:ABC Online
413:Tryptofish
1221:WP:POINTy
1199:Hijiri 88
1174:Hijiri 88
1030:Hijiri 88
951:Nishidani
890:WP:POINTy
840:Hijiri 88
788:Hijiri 88
784:Mottainai
734:Hijiri 88
632:Hijiri 88
628:extremely
605:Hijiri 88
579:Hijiri 88
493:mottainai
466:Hijiri 88
387:Hijiri 88
367:Hijiri 88
240:Hijiri 88
235:Withdrawn
214:Hijiri 88
209:Mottainai
200:mottainai
1239:¡gobble!
1105:Overview
1008:¡gobble!
962:¡gobble!
901:¡gobble!
786:artice.
574:reverted
568:Sindanna
551:contribs
543:Sindanna
530:Sindanna
507:¡gobble!
444:¡gobble!
301:MT Train
284:MT Train
267:MT Train
116:View log
1191:As for
163:WP refs
151:scholar
89:protect
84:history
50:Nyttend
682:WP:GNG
677:India
526:WP:GNG
433:WP:GNG
135:Google
93:delete
1164:don't
1067:Focus
990:Focus
933:Focus
876:Focus
825:Focus
703:Focus
489:bāsan
335:Focus
178:JSTOR
139:books
123:Stats
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1146:talk
1097:Keep
599:were
547:talk
534:talk
522:Keep
429:Keep
417:talk
411:. --
313:Keep
171:FENS
145:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
1228:are
357:was
185:TWL
114:– (
1235:🍁
1210:)
1207:やや
1185:)
1182:やや
1148:)
1041:)
1038:やや
1004:🍁
958:🍁
949:,
897:🍁
851:)
848:やや
799:)
796:やや
745:)
742:やや
684:.
667:,
643:)
640:やや
616:)
613:やや
590:)
587:やや
549:•
541:—
536:)
503:🍁
477:)
474:やや
440:🍁
419:)
398:)
395:やや
378:)
375:やや
298:.
281:.
264:.
251:)
248:やや
225:)
222:やや
165:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
1204:聖
1201:(
1179:聖
1176:(
1159::
1155:@
1144:(
1064:m
1061:a
1058:e
1055:r
1052:D
1035:聖
1032:(
987:m
984:a
981:e
978:r
975:D
930:m
927:a
924:e
921:r
918:D
873:m
870:a
867:e
864:r
861:D
845:聖
842:(
822:m
819:a
816:e
813:r
810:D
793:聖
790:(
739:聖
736:(
700:m
697:a
694:e
691:r
688:D
637:聖
634:(
610:聖
607:(
584:聖
581:(
570::
566:@
545:(
532:(
471:聖
468:(
461::
457:@
415:(
392:聖
389:(
372:聖
369:(
353::
349:@
332:m
329:a
326:e
323:r
320:D
245:聖
242:(
219:聖
216:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
119:·
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.