Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bocchi (Japanese)


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (state)  @ 21:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Bocchi (Japanese)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This belongs to the Wikidictionary, not to the encyclopedia. Basically, this article is about Japanese word for solitude. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree this is just a word description, but in any case it should at least be romanised correctly: it's botchi in Hepburn (and botti in Kunreishiki). The 'cchi' thing is just an artefact of the fact that no input method written in Japan accepts standard romanisation, for reasons which are not clear. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep — The explanation and discussion in the article is simply not a dictionary definition. The term ぼっち (I don't have a strong feeling about the Romanization) is a netslang term but it refers to a concept that is of broader sociological and cultural interest both in Japan and abroad. The text and the references in the article clearly establish notability as well as demonstrating that the concept is of broader cultural importance like (and in fact, related to) "hikikomori."
 * One challenge is that most of the references are Japanese. I just found and added an English language article about "botchi cool" in manga which looks like it's a republished translation of an article in Yomiuri Shimbun. Major newspapers don't normally write articles about a word. When they do, it's a sign that its the kind of thing that deserves an article. — m a k o ๛  18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Looks like a collection of original research cobbled together as an essay that rambles into discussions of "kodokushi". Not an encyclopedic article. --DAJF (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an interesting insight into Japanese culture, and far more than a dictionry definition.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable concept which was object of both academic and more "mainstream" analysis and coverage. The article goes well-beyond a dictionary definition, and it is still expandable. Cavarrone 09:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you give us some references to this coverage? How do they refer to the "concept of Japanese solitude" (which is all that botchi means really)? The current article rambles around different Japanese terms, such as botchi-meshi, which really are not part of any coherent *topic*, but rather about usages of the word. If we include the section at the bottom on kodokushi, there really is no commonality at all except "being alone (in Japan)". Would that be a better title for the article? Imaginatorium (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage and notability are already in the article, notably in the section about "opinions by academics". All the rest (including keeping or removing the section about kodokushi, and I tend to agree it could go away) is a matter of cleanup, and does not imply deletion. About the title, I agree the article should be moved/renamed (very likely as Botchi as you suggested). Cavarrone 10:42, 14 December 2014 (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.