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. -Docg 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article should be deleted for the same reaons as Father of the Nation, currently being discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Father_of_the_Nation If possible, this article is even more silly and I do wonder if the author added it as a joke or not. How many Americans in the US think "Ah, mother of the nation!" when somebody mentions Eleanor Roosevelt? And I can guarantee Tarja Halonen is not described in that way. And just who is Inge Meisel. I hope this article is deleted before we have to see "Son of the nation", "Daughter of the Nation" and "Cousin's Step-oncle of the Nation"... :-) JdeJ 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is the "phenomenon" in the end? Actually the very term "mother of the nation" is ambiguous, all the more if translated into foreign languages; does it refer to "some woman who helped building the nation", or to "some woman who is widely known as a mother", or to "some woman who is widely for acting the role of a mother"? See the "Inge Meysel" example above. --B. Wolterding 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everything is ambiguous in society. This is not mathematics.Biophys 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's not mathematics. It's original research, no sources and completely made up. Tarja Halonen is not called Mother of the Nation, Eleanor Roosevelt is not and Inge Meysel is an actor. The article is inaccurate and few of these women, possibly none, is called Mother of the Nation. Being from one of the countries mentioned in the article and having lived for quite some time in two others, I can safely say that the article is pure nonsence. JdeJ 01:13, 19 May 2007 (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.