Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manut pa

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manut pa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTDICT... Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not the place for neologism. Also, the sources are not reliable, such as Blogspot. JMHamo (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I noted on the article talk page five minutes prior to the AfD nom, "The subject of this article is easily notable, as it has received tons of press coverage. The Bangkok Post alone carries several comprehensive articles[1][2][3][4][5] which could be used to replace the blog references." --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral We don't have articles even for English neologisms. I have to go to the Urban Dictionary to find out what they mean. Granted, we do have an article on Herbivore men. But that term is mainly a springboard for popular analyses of changes in Japanese society, everything from the birth rate to the economy, gender roles, etc. Does this term tell us anything about Thai society, other than that people are annoyed by rudeness? There was some of that in one of the Bangkok Post articles. But it didn't look like enough for a whole article. Thin on general significance. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEO says, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. 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." Why should this be deemed not to be the case here? In addition to those Bangkok Post articles, the term has been discussed (not merely used), by multiple national news outlets, including Prachachat Turakij,[6] Thai PBS,[7] Post Today,[8] Krungthep Turakij,[9] and MCOT's FM 100.5,[10] not to mention the numerous sensationalist newspapers which are the country's best-selling. It has even been covered by Mahidol University's Population and Development Newsletter[11] and a press release from the Rajanukul Institute of Mental Health.[12] --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the question, "Does this term tell us anything about Thai society?" Yes. Those sources discuss the conflict between the tradition of giving respect and priority to one's elders and the manners that have come to be accepted in modern society, as well as the dangers of the trend transforming into a hate/discriminatory movement. I think that's enough potential content upon which to build a Wikipedia article. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I changed my vote to neutral. I'm willing to wait if it can get more content. I do think it needs more than just a list of behaviors and the editor's own analysis. Also I think it might help to move the article to an English name. I'm sure that "Manut pa" is an interesting name in Thai, funny or incongruous or whatever, but not knowing Thai it doesn't do anything for me. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite being mentioned in sources, which I admit I can't translate, this is a dictionary entry not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia at this point as per WP:NOTDICT. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree this is a dictionary definition, and appears to be based completely on original research. Not only does the article contain its own OR, but its citations are also pure OR. Of the 3 sources cited, the blog citation is not appropriate, the manager.co.th is an editorial piece, and the Bangkok Post piece consists of more OR and personal commentary by the author in the Lifestyle section — hardly authoritative sources. As to the coverage identified by Paul_012 above, only one of them might be considered a bona-fide article; all the others are purely personal commentary. Is an obscure "lifestyle" writer's original research worthy of representation in a global encyclopedia?
That said, the content of this article could be kept as part of a larger list article on Thai vocabulary, similar to Singlish vocabulary, which includes similar terms. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:No original research policy means that articles' content must not be Wikipedia authors' own original research. Primary and secondary sources will of course contain original research; where else would their information come from? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My argument above was two-fold, that the article contains its own OR, and that a non-notable author's personal opinion, just because it happens to be published, is no different than a blog, and does not constitute a reliable source for purposes of evaluating the notability of a topic. Original research that has been quoted in other reliable sources, or peer-reviewed, is a better indicator of notability. Somebody's personal reflections in an editorial piece are not. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of the delete !votes are being made with regard to the current status of the article, which I agree is inadequate. I'm fine with it being deleted without prejudice to creating a new, proper article. I question, though, whether this is in the spirit of WP:BEFORE, which says, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." --Paul_012 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make it worth inclusion I will change my opinion but as it currently stands this article should be in Wikitionary not Wikipedia. If there are verifiable sources for the significance of this phrase with perhaps a history of it's origins. As I do not speak Thai, and no one else has stepped up to improve the article it should be deleted or merged into an article as Amatulić suggested above.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why the heck was this relisted once, let alone twice? It's a NEOLOGISM. It's a DICDEF. Only ONE editor's advocating keeping the thing. Done deal. Or it should've been. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.