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. List the other articles in a separate AFD if desired. --Coredesat 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Lolita[edit]

Qi Lolita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stub article refers to an obscure neologism (WP:NEO) or a hoax term that isn't actually used. In Japan, qipao is referred to as "China dress" (チャイナドレス, chaina doresu), so it is unlikely the term "Qi Lolita" comes from Japan. In any case, Japanese language search didn't reveal any info on it. Doing an English language Google search[1] (with "-wikipedia" added to avoid Wikipedia and mirrors) only reveals 30 hits, mostly list of definitions type pages that probably copy definitions off each other anyway. Not mentioned in the Japanese Wikipedia article for Lolita fashion[2]. Tokek 07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a 'walled garden' of fetish articles related to this which also need AfDs. See the articles this links to. This concept may appeal to some fetishists, but there is no evidence of notability. The articles cite manufacturers of the clothing and websites or blogs, none of which establish notability. Delete for lack of multiple INDEPENDENT and RELIABLE sources. Edison 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Edison...big problem with WP:V. SkierRMH 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I feel uncomfortable supporting deletion of an article from an area I am not familiar with, but I can say as a linguist that this and the related term "wa lolita" just wouldn't fly in the language of the young and fashionable. The two are, to put it bluntly, dasai. This makes me believe that the term is indeed a neologism. Somebody with a little insight should look into the entire lolita fashion series of articles, at first glance most of them seem to be suffering from similar POV issues. TomorrowTime 13:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable [3]--Eastkong 14:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Wa Lolita, Punk Lolita, Sweet Lolita, Classical Lolita. All seem to have been created by User:Knowi7 probably associated with the "Gothic and Lolita LiveJournal community" which is linked in all of them. I say delete all because the term is neologistic and there is no evidence of widespread usage. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 31 December 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.