Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parasite singles

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 of the debate was keep. Babajobu 13:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parasite singles

Not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Does not cite sources. This appears to be little more than a concept from some sociology paperback, which likely masks some political or cultural agenda. Suggestions for what else to do (merge) with this article are welcome. Shoehorn 05:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep relates to Japanese sociological phenomenon of children refusing to engage with outside world, certainly notable, and has had media coverage, but article needs work. A related concept is
    Amae. -- Paul foord 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

No doubt, a search in Japanese would come up with more. A Google book search came up with three pages showing the term is commonly used. [2] Google Scholar comes up with 76 results too [3]. Both verifiable and a notable phenomenon in Japanese society. [4]

  • Strong keep. Notable. jdb ❋ (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The topic is well known in Japan, in frequency of usage probably comparable to Yuppie in the US. Hikkikomori is a related but definitely different subject. (Disclaimer: I am one of the major contributors to the article, and also contributed significantly to Hikkikomori. I am also no Japanese, and have no political or cultural agenda beyond improving the coverage of Japan in Wikipedia) -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept of Yuppies has been around for decades. Can you establish a history for this term longer than the past few years? Otherwise it seems like popular slang. At the same time, I'd like to see some evidence that this is a recent social phenomenon, and not something that has happened almost everywhere throughout history -- I mean come on, kids living with their parents is nothing new. Shoehorn 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kids living with their parents is nothing new, but a large fraction of people in their twenties feeling no real pressure to marry or contribute to household expenses, and spending almost all their income on discretionary purchases, is fairly new... AnonMoos 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Especially in a society where early marriage is normal and expected. Oh, and the term "yuppie" dates to 1984, and I seriously doubt that you would have used the "only the past few years" test in the 1988 equivalent of Wikipedia. "Recent sociological phenomenon" is, strangely enough, recent. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is this social phenomenon significant? Shoehorn 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, I don't know, maybe because it's a significant alteration in a conservative society's behavior and affects everything from economics to the country's low birthrate. The multiple Google Scholar and Google Book hits might have been the tiniest clue as to significance. A better question is, why do you keep asking pointless rhetorical questions? --Calton | Talk 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why do I ask rhetorical questions? Because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some spurious letter to the editor about "those darn kids who won't get jobs." Please, show me something more than a crackpot theory about a "conservative society" and a 500 word article in the Times. Shoehorn 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • On a side note, Shoehorn, could you try a more neutral language. Calling it bullshit or crackpot theory does not aid a factual discussion. Also, as another info, the German article on this topic has 1100 words and the Japanese one has 900 words. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What part of The multiple Google Scholar and Google Book hits might have been the tiniest clue as to significance did you overlook? Multiple? Scholar? Books? Clue? --Calton | Talk 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The topic is of great importance on current japanese society.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide research to back up this position. Shoehorn 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try here: "Parasites in Prêt-à-Porter", from the New York Times, July 1, 2001 (Requires TimesSelect subscription) and "Japan's 'parasite singles'". Also, assuming you're serious, browse through Google Book excerpts while you're at it. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not personally impressed by these sources, as material on which to construct an encyclopedia entry. Only time will tell if this social/political straw man is worth noting. Shoehorn 03:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course you're not impressed: you keep asking questions which have been answered and ignore references which meet at least minimal standards of genuine scholarship in favor of denigrating and loaded language to dismiss it. It's clear you have, for whatever reason, already decided what this is, evidence or arguments to the contrary be damned. Whether your motive is stubbornness, embarrassment, prejudice, axe-grinding, or contrariness on your part is immaterial: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Prodego talk 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read this article before and found it to be informative. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ~ 1000 google hits on the English phrase alone, with a 50% non-duplication rate. Presumably JP:WP has a better entry on this and it could be used to tidy up this one, which needs some help. Eusebeus 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known sociological topic in Japan. Within *.go.jp sites, "parasite singles" gets about 29 google hits and search in Japanese produces about 148 google hits. --Kusunose 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real phenomenon, though the article needs more definitive sources. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Genuine phenomenon in Japan, worth an encyclopedia article. Fg2 09:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136,000 Google hits in Japanese. No close connection with hikkomori. Fg2 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a genuine phenomenon, acknowledged and discussed by many Japanese-language sources as well as many other sources including CNN, the BBC, and the NY Times. Not, as the original poster suggested, "a concept from some sociology paperback, which likely masks some political or cultural agenda." LordAmeth 11:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one's an easy decision. CES 12:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a genuine phenomenon in Japan, similar to that of the Twixter problem in the US, British NEETs or similar ones elsewhere.--み使い Mitsukai 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "some concept from a sociology paperback" is actually enough for a keep, so thanks to Shoehorn for giving the reason. Even if is more like "a pile of paperbacks and lots of scientific papers" in the present case. Bless ignorance. --Mkill 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work, but this is indeed a genuine phenomenon. It's been the subject of countless press articles, and as a personal note, I know many of these parasite singles myself. --awh (Talk) 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris 73 Lyo 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep notable topic. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable subject and, again, a very real phenomenon. If the article is cleaned up then Strong Keep. --Every1blowz 20:13, 10 February 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parasite_singles&oldid=1142243890"