Child's slave: This is an issue I see to one degree or another with a lot of China-related articles, where a unique phrase is used to birth a new sociological concept not necessarily related to the wider world—of course, with the root of the issue being there aren't a lot of reliable sources that actually link such concepts in China to those elsewhere.  So it's equally a 'greater world' issue as much as it is a wiki issue.  Regardless, there aren't really any results or sources that would lend this concept reification or notability since that time that I could find in either English or Chinese, the ones that are there are exceedingly paltry and do not constitute notability in itself imo.  This isn't proof in itself, but the corresponding zhwiki article is three uncited sentences.  Remsense 留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  Remsense 留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment You raise some interesting points, but on the other hand the phrase 孩奴 and similar terms like 房奴 (housing slave) continue to be discussed as a matter of linguistics.   For example this [1] uses it as an example of internet slang.   I know that's a thesis, but it's not paywalled so it's handy.  In this article [2] mentions are quite brief, but current, and it says most people recognize the term.  Does this article have merit as a linguistic phenomenon even if it's not the hottest slang ATM?  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oblivy , the use–mention distinction plays a role once again—is the term in itself notable, or does any article for it have to awkwardly describe both the term and the phenomenon, since the former may not be notable, as much slang isn't, and the latter may not justify its own article as a manifestation of a greater sociological phenomenon?  I hadn't found that article, thank you for linking it—I would really appreciate additional input from people that may have a local feel for whether these "things" are really "things" distinct from western analogues.  This is definitely the realm of my personal opinion, but there are a lot of articles for "Chinese terms" that could use this kind of scrutiny, and reading them often feels icky, like they're reports from Victorian expeditions to far-off lands.  Remsense 留 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The relevant excerpt from WP:NOTDICT says: In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed.  In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such.  The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia.  World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda and Truthiness illustrate this.  Remsense 留 02:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another nomination with a lack of a valid rationale .  So what if the topic is a "flash-in-the-pan"?  Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary , and the concept does not have to have sources about it in every single part of the world for it to be notable.  I also found this entire piece from Beijing Review on the concept and this , both published in 2010, indicating there was significant coverage out of the 2013-14 period.  Admittedly, most of the sources that appeared in my search was about American slavery and not this concept, so there is not a whole lot about the topic.  But there seems to be enough to make a small article out of it, and not being internationally known or currently covered is no excuse to not have an article on it.  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am aware notability is not temporary, my point being that the 'flash' as it were did not generate enough coverage of the concept itself to constitute notability, and moreover that some false notion of notability may be generated simply by the term being in Chinese, and perhaps the material should be incorporated into a general article for the concept.  Remsense 留 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the nom is referring to WP:SUSTAINED , which is a valid argument in a general sense.  (I don't know enough about the subject to know if it's rightfully applied though.)  Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meanwhile, I am voting Merge per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning.  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I am firmly for deletion if the current cites the only WP:RS available.  Without scholarly secondary analysis of the phrase, this should be deleted.  As written, the article fails WP:GNG for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO .  I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro 's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in this instance. The question is whether this flash-in-the-pan ever had enough of a 'flash' to establish notability in the first place.  Further, the lack of a valid rationale argument is simply false.  Remsense discussed notability and sourcing, both of which are perfectly strong policy-based arguments.  I also have a quibble with using general recognisability as a indicator of notability as Oblivy does above; flash-in-the-pan is familiar to nearly all English speakers, yet does not have a page in this encyclopaedia.  However, I cannot ! vote to delete at this time because I am unable to do proper WP:BEFORE research.  All sources are in languages that I do not read and the cites in the article are all from a very, very narrow timeframe.  If no one can provide solid RS with strong analysis and a wider range of dates, I will change to deletion before this AfD closes.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wuuuuuuuuutttt?  I just brought up two articles from mainstream sources on the topic from 2010.  Also, I have absolutely no idea what "strength" you saw.  Remsense's only-cited policy page was NOTDICT, which does not even apply because the article IS about the concept and not just the phrase.  His only notability complaints, to put it simply, were that there were not sources about this concept in other parts of the world.  I would love to know what guideline prohibits a topic if it only exists or is covered within a specific nation state, because a lot of articles about animes are pretty much in trouble if that exists.  Also, while WP:ACADEMIC coverage of the topic would help tremendously, it is not the end of the world if that does not exist.  All that needs to happen for WP:GNG to be satisfied is a few independent sources (newspapers or magazines) to WP:SIGCOV the topic, and with the Beijing Review article and citations currently in the article, it seems to have satisfied that.  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep although not enthusiastically so.  The deletion rationales are pretty all over the place right now.   Sustained isn't an issue.  Notneo seems to give way to sustained.   Sigcov is addressed with Chinese sources.  @ HumanxAnthro Good catch on the Beijing Review and China Daily Articles.   That means we have coverage in 2010, later in 2013-14 in analysis of internet usage, and then in 2019 or so in the PKU article.   That's pretty sustained.  There were two academic studies in Chinese in the 2010-2011 range: 岳玉阁.  “论‘孩奴’现象对幼儿生命成长的不良影响.” 教育与教学研究 25.10 (2011): 120–122 徐安琪.  “‘孩奴’炒作现象的负效应和辨正.”  Dang dai qing nian yan jiu = Contemporary youth research 8 (2010) And this 2023 article [3] gives it a passing footnote mention (bringing in the Beijing Review article) in the context of pressures on Chinese fertility.  I "quibble" with whether I actually advocated for using recognisability as an indicator of notability, BUT I do wonder whether the almost total lack of discussion of this concept in English sources means that it's really a Chinese-only phenomenon.  That all having been said, the China Daily article is 100% about this term, and there are multiple Chinese-language papers which use it as either a centerpiece or a significant example of online speech.  I think that's enough.  Although not required by WP:NEXISTS it would be nice if some of this work could make it into the article...  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am increasingly ready to prefer merging or withdrawing entirely with the additional sources found during the discussion.  I apologize if my initial arguments were presented confusingly, but my reasons for skepticism in articles like these are inherently multi-faceted, due to a number of contributing factors.  Remsense 留 02:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Little emperor syndrome due to the similarity in concepts: The one-child policy, the child's being the centre of the family and attention, high parental expectations, and spoilt children.  BlackcurrantTea ( talk ) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BlackcurrantTea , precisely!  Thank you for naming the article specifically, something I've neglected to do.  Remsense 留 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Little emperor syndrome per BlackcurrantTea 's reasoning. It resolves my concerns in teh the comment I made above. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:45, 19 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge