Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai ryōiki

:{{la|Zettai ryōiki}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zettai_ry%C5%8Diki Stats])

:({{Find sources|Zettai ryōiki}})

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The various references used to assemble this article are a synthesis of sources. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki (2nd nomination) the same problem was recognized but with different sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

::Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki, which is the first deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is nothing like the "mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations" etc. described at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is a discussion of the aesthetics, history, and popularity of a particular fashion. That is not to say that the article establishes the notability of the concept or verifies its own content; this is not a "keep" !vote. However, the reference to NOTDICT is entirely spurious. Of course the article contains a definition; all good articles do. The problem that NOTDICT addresses is articles that contain nothing but a definition and related information about the word, and are unlikely to be expanded beyond that content. Cnilep (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep WP:NOTDICT does not seem to apply here, I am also seeing more in the way of sources than described in the last AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Knowledgekid87's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, no idea how the article was in the previous deleted version, but actually it goes well beyond a dictionary definition and the sourcing appears to sustain a claim of notability. Cavarrone 10:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:*When the previous article was deleted in February 2009, it was a completely different article, and the article that is here today was completely written from scratch. From memory, the earlier 2009 article was a largely unreferenced stub dicdef which exclusively used blog/forum posts as citations. This is no longer the case for the current article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki (2nd nomination), when WP:NOTDICT was a genuine concern back then, this article as it currently stands is not a dicdef article, and so WP:NOTDICT doesn't really seem to apply. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - this article consists of much more than a dictionary definition so NOTDICT is irrelevant; the article also has enough sources to satisfy notability requirements Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:13, 24 June 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.