Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amejo


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Amejo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dictionary definition with no reliable sources. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do not understand how a published book by a journalist whose articles have appeared in the New York Times and other reliable sources and who is employed at Fortune magazine fails itself to be a reliable source. And the fact that the title of the article is a word does not, in fact, entail that the article is a dicdef. I see here a stub on a sociological phenomenon, which has real encyclopedic potential. Angr (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep.I agree with Angr. I fail to see where there is a "lack of reliable" sources for this particular article.--Yellow Coyote (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.