Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Mom


 * 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   merge to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Whilst there is discussion requesting that the article be keep and that it be redirected without a merge, I feel that a merge fulfills the !votes of most participants. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Tiger Mom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The notability of this article is inherited from Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua with no sources provided that it is a notable neologism in itself. It seems reasonable to redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. According to WP:NEO, To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. The following article talks about the term "Tiger Mom":
 * 1) The Telegraph: Why-we-all-need-a-Tiger-Mother
 * Comment: The problem is that this article is based on Amy Chua and her book  Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, it appears to be a classical case of WP:INHERENT notability.  Are there reliable sources for this term that are independent of the book and Amy Chua?--I am One of Many (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If a source talks about the term Tiger Mom, it will have to refer to its origins, so how can you find sources independent of Amy Chua and her book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireflySixtySeven (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The concept is demonstrably notable, so deletion is not appropriate.  GScholar has quite a few results that suggest that the concept is being considered separately from consideration of the book (although many of them do appear to mention the book).  I think this article probably could be developed into something worthwhile.  On the other hand, in its current state, it accomplishes nothing that the book article does not already accomplish.  So I think the merge/keep discussion should be a matter for evolving editorial consensus through talk page discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother at least until it can be proved that there is enough coverage to separate it. It doesn't help that there are six sources after one sentence that could easily go to developing the article. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother There isn't enough there to demonstrate a need for a spin-off article at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. See wikt:Citations:tiger mother for sources using the term that are independent of Chua's book, including one quote preceding the publication of Chua's book. The sense "fiercely protective mother", which could also be discussed in the article, is even older. But rename Tiger mother. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Very nice, I completely agree. Rename as Tiger mother and incorporate citations.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. You could merge, I guess, but there is only one sentence in the article (the first one, asserting that "tiger mom" is a neologism) that is not already better covered in the article about the book. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. See as a parallell Kafkaesque which redirects to Franz Kafka. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2013 (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.