Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikata ga nai


 * 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. Sandstein (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shikata ga nai

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete WP:DICTWP:IINFO Emailo333 09:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as dictionary content per nomination. From the history it appears this was previously (de-)prodded after being transwikied to Wiktionary, so its safe where it belongs. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Move — Is it possible to do an interwiki version of a move to add this content to Wiktionary whilst preserving the edit history (modulo interwiki username issues)? The Wiktionary article is extremely brief and could be usefully expanded, but simply cut-and-pasting the content of this Wikipedia article to Wiktionary would lose the edit history, which would be a  of the GFDL. - Neparis 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   —Fg2 09:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep as is-defining component of the Japanese psyche. Chris 09:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is? I'd thought it was merely one common expression (another being shō ga nai) of this "component". "Gaman" is irrelevant; have an article on "Japanese stolidity"? -- Hoary 09:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/question I'm no fan of dicdefs, and on top of that it's odd to see this Japanese phrase explained by pop sociologists (or so it seems), and garnished with mentions in what's very generously termed "literature". Also it's bizarre that shō ga nai isn't mentioned. But I was under the impression that WP allowed entries for speech act terms and phrases. But though kuwabara kuwabara has an article, Thank you doesn't. Duh. -- Hoary 09:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep- I think its clear that this is more than just a dictionary definition. Actually I don't see a compelling case for deletion. The content seems more at home in an encyclopedia than a dictionary. The Smilodon (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Clearly more than merely a dictionary definition, and supported by citations as well. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 05:02, 24 November 2007 (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.