Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 2 June 2013

Gosei (Japanese diaspora)

Gosei (Japanese diaspora) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a term that has very little usage in any media, only picked up by original author Ansei (a.k.a. Tenmei) in whatever research he performed. There is no analogous article at the Japanese Misplaced Pages, which seems to cut off at the Yonsei terminology. The only other project where this article exists is at Simple English where it has been authored by Ansei himself. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Issei, Nisei and Sansei are needed. Yonsei, very likely unnecessary. Gosei certainly unnecessary. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - This is one of the few JA related articles where an equivalent in JA Misplaced Pages is not needed (overseas diaspora generally has very weak connection to Japan) and it is referenced in a number of legitimate sources by Ansei. It is accepted as a term in discussions about Japanese-American history. I am willing to see this article kept. It can certainly be better written and improved. Jun Kayama 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei/Ansei, stop assuming bad faith.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Concur with Ryulong in this case. Current AfD should be judged on its own merits. Unrelated AfDs have no place here for discussion. Jun Kayama 13:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I'm assuming good faith that the sources cited support the article and that they used the term "Gosei." I'd say that raises the article to the keep level. Borock (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  I went through a handful and the word "Gosei" was used all of once.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  Then disregard my vote. In my opinion the topic deserves about one sentence in Assimilation (sociology), but that's not the same as a vote to delete. Borock (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Borock -- Ryulong's summary assessment is inaccurate. A quick review shows that Gosei is explicit in a range of cited reliable sources here + here + here + here + here + here +here + herehere + here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Gosei is cited in numerous instances and is part of the lexicon of Japanese-American studies. However, this last generation is extremely small in number, and lacks achievements equivalent to Issei, Nisei, so all references will be solely to the fact they exist as a demographic and nothing more. Jun Kayama 13:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Question -- When the term like Gosei is published in the US Congressional Record, does it not become an example WP:Inherent notability? -- see "Japantown Represents More than 100 Years of a Unique Immigrant Experience," inserted into the Congressional Record, September 19, 2006; excerpt, "... the emergence of the activist third generation — the Sansei — who are now "baby boomers" and the parents and grandparents of the fourth and fifth generations — the Yonsei and Gosei"? --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Here's another book source discussing the concept: Mothering, Education, and Ethnicity: The Transformation of Japanese American Culture. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - (ec) Although not as commonly used as parallel terms for previous generations, this still seems to be a Japanese-English crossover term that will generate user inquiry. The concept is best covered encyclopedically, as the current imperfect article demonstrates. Keep under the policy of WP:IAR, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Important concept that deserves an article. More than a mere dictionary definition. As to this request, YGBSM! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as discussed above. —Σosthenes12 21:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
• Keep - WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been followed, and this is most certainly not a mere dictionary definition. The article has some history, but lacks more sources from paywalled works like this and a work on teaching idioms. Its also interesting to note that Misplaced Pages has one of the best histories and coverage of the idiom; surpassing dictionaries and other word sites including Wiktionary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates