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 merge to Bathing#Types of baths. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandi (bath) (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)

Non-notable local term for bathing with a pail. Note that the quote from footnote two is wrong, one bathes from a bak mandi; mandi is a verb.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, there is no mandi as a room; kamar mandi is the room (room for bathing, or bathroom) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment(added for User:FrankSier based on his comments below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)) See my arguments for notability in the article's talk page.[reply]

(These comments are as follows:

"This article was proposed for deletion, on notability grounds, specifically "No indication of notability". I wish to defend the notability of this article. I am the original creator of this article.

My main argument for notability is that mandi, in this sense, is covered in Rough Guides and Lonely Planet; these are two of the most widely used sets of travel guides in the world; they are generally considered to be reliable.

The references are included in the article. (Unfortunately one of the links - referring to Rough Guide Malaysia - is broken, but the relevant text that was there is shown in the reference.)

Argument that this coverage is significant: in both cases mandi (in the sense of this article) is described.

These sources are independent.

I have removed the proposed for deletion template, following the instructions in the template."FrankSier (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

)

Is local being used as an argument for non-notable? If so, I do not think that this necessarily follows. (I think that something can be local and notable.) Is local being used to mean relating to Malaysia and Indonesia, (quite a large area) or some more restricted geographical area?

Also, I believe the term mandi has expanded beyond local use, and is known by some people world-wide (and there is evidence for this in the article and it's references), admittedly often people who have travelled in, or are considering travel to, the relevant areas.

I agree that there are some concerns about the quality and accuracy of the article, relating to exactly how the word mandi is used, but I do not think these relate to notability.

FrankSier (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From the Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, fourth edition:

mandi v. to wash one's body with water and soap (by pouring water over or soaking one's body, etc.) [membersihkan tubuh dng air dan sabun (dng cara menyiramkan, merendamkan diri ke air, dsb.] p.871

bak mandi n. something used to hold water for bathing [kolam tempat air untuk mandi], p. 121

kamar mandi n. place for bathing [bilik tempat mandi], p. 611

If the term has gained widespread use in English, with information available that can be more than a dictionary definition, then it may be notable. I don't see it here. I suspect what happened is that the writer of the tourism book about Indonesia was not a fluent speaker of the language nor was he familiar with the culture, and got things wrong when he heard "mandi" repeated over and over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added 5 references with some quotations to show usage, and have tidied up the article a little. I agree with FrankSier that the article was ripe for improvement, and hope it will be thought somewhat better now. However the concept is definitely notable. There is no reason why a concept centred on Southeast Asia is any less notable than a concept centred on Florida in Southeast USA or Kent in Southeast England: Wikipedia is not parochial. Mandi is widely used as the citations also show. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of the quotes are of low value

• "Take a mandi as frequently as you need to stay cool. Use a dipper to throw cold water over your red-hot skin (though if it's too hot, a shockingly cold mandi might give you a headache." - Replace "mandi" with "bath" and you have essentially the same thing. As it's from a travel guide, I think it was added for a bit of local flavour.
• The factsanddetails.com source, aside from displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Indonesian language (as noted above, mandi is a verb), does not seem to be a reliable source.
• The mandi-Mandy quote does not seem encyclopedic.
• What makes East Bali Poverty Project a reliable source?
• The ecology.com source is clearly mistaken; as cited above, kamar mandi is the room, mandi is the action. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the ecology.com and factsanddetails.com sources is precisely that that is the actual usage - by native speaker standards, certainly mistaken as we know, but it is what people happen to use. Which is the subject of the article. You can't have it both ways: if it were purely a Malay/Indonesian usage and only touched upon with perfect correctness by expert scholars, you'd be saying that there was no general currency to the usage. Now that it's plainly demonstrated that not only scholars but travellers professional and otherwise join in the usage, you say it's not correct and scholarly! As for equating mandi with bath, well, it doesn't involve getting into a tub, or shouldn't; and in the other sense, where a shower constitutes bathing, then of course, so does taking a mandi. It's a different kind, a Southeast Asian kind. The quotes taken together - of all different provenances, elegant and clumsy, do just what they should: demonstrate the broad-based reality of the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is, native speakers don't just say mandi for bathroom. A Javanese villager, when asking permission to go to the bathroom, might say Mau ke belakang (Want to go out back), as saying kamar kecil, toilet, or kamar mandi could be considered rude by the host. In the city, with malls and whatnot, you'll find the term toilet to be more common on signs. In day-to-day life kamar kecil and kamar mandi would be acceptable spoken Indonesian. I've never been to Borneo or the other outer islands, so it may be different there. The sources are, quite frankly, reporting misinterpretation as fact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Wikipedia doesn't do translations. It's an article trying to be notable but never will be.--Merbabu (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we note please that removing referenced text and the supporting references during an AfD would be best avoided? Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If text should not be in an article, it can be removed, AFD or not. "It is cited" is not the sole criteria for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Since you have not provided any further reason for your revert and I have been quite descriptive in my reasoning (which you have so far ignored), I've restored it, and in the wikipedia way, should you dispute this, then use the talk page to gain consensus for inclusions, which appear to have only come about following the AFD nomination. --Merbabu (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears that support for this article is based on three notions (i) that this is notable as a uniquely Indonesian/Malay phenomenon and (ii) an apparent wish to provide a translating service for our readers and (iii) it's interesting in an kind of travel documentary way. Firstly, this is not unique and is not notable beyond bathing - it can be included there. And secondly, wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary - any translation function is not the function of wikipedia and is null as a notability criteria. And "it's interesting" has never been a criteria for notability. --Merbabu (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not at all. On (i), it's not being claimed as local but as a usage in English among people especially who live in or have visited Southeast Asia. On (ii), the usage is not about translation and this is not a dictionary definition. On (iii), the split/lump problem, all concepts on Wikipedia are related to other concepts; it is always a matter of judgement whether to split or lump. Here, the manner of taking a mandi is at least as different a mode of bathing as taking a shower is from sitting in a tub. Finally, nobody is saying notability depends on being interesting. It rests as always on properly cited facts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, since you haven't responded to argue that mandi is a uniquely Indonesian thing I'm assuming you don't support that notion. Excellent. But, instead are you trying to argue that the English language concept of bak mandi is notable. Ie, mandi is an English word now, and that this is encyclopaedia material? I've lived and travelled in SE Asia, and people call many things many different things that are often wrong (and not just in SE Asia). Maybe mandi might be one of those, but that doesn't mean that foreign language errors are encyclopaedic material. More to the point, I've never heard it referred to it as mandi. If you've ever lived overseas, you often take on the local word for something, if not everything.

As the dictionary excerpt above shows, mandi is a verb - to have a shower/bath. bak mandi is the actual thing. Neither mandi or bak mandi are notable encyclopaedia items. Westerners using the term mandi as noun are just wrong, and it's not notable.--Merbabu (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've explained at least 2 times here... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a classic case of WP:NOT - and the arguments for keeping the article are problematic if not stretching the possibilities of Indonesian practices being given in their indigenous names rather than a translated form - similar to Indonesian editors using Indonesian/Javanese words and not translating (Keraton/Kraton is often used by Indonesian editors instead of the translation to Palace) - it is sending a very wrong message to future editors if such an item is kept. Notability has not necessarily anything to do with cites - there are a very large amount of terms and issues that are simply not encyclopediac despite being mentioned in tourist guidebooks. SatuSuro 11:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SatSuro said "Notability has not necessarily anything to do with cites", which seems to me just about the opposite of the notability guidelines. I think we should get back to basics: in Wikipedia:Notability the general notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

It seems to me therefore that therefore inclusion can be challenged on 3 basic grounds:

1. whether the coverage is "significant" (of sufficient detail),

2. "Reliable" (which I would take to mean "generally considered to be reliable in that particular area of knowledge - provided the area of knowledge itself is notable")

3. "independent".

I think that (at least a lot of) the challenge has been on the grounds of reliability. It would seem that in terms of "correct" use of Indonesian or Malay languages, maybe the travel guides are not; but the three travel guides that have been cited Lonely Planet, Rough Guides and Indonesia Handbook relate to information for as understood by travellers and tourists, and, in this field, these three guides are major references.

I think there is some challenge as to whether "touristic guidebooks" and information realting to travel and tourism themselves are notable areas of knowledge. So there are possibly questions: is this area of knowledge notable? Are the quoted guidebooks reliable within this field? (I would say yes to both.)

Extra information: in the Indonesia Handbook, third edition, 1985, page 78, there is a section covering about one third of a page, with the heading mandi. This lends support to the coverage being significant.

Also, in one of the cites, it was the prime minister of (then) Malaya who is quoted as saying "I want Mandi", when at Heathrow Airport (UK), and I think that this can be taken as a usage of the word mandi in this way (without bak or kamar; and mixed with English).

A lot of the cites are at present removed from the article so it probably makes it quite difficult for new people to join this discussion. A lot of the evidence for keeping the article is now quite difficult to get at.

Could SatuSuro be specific about which part of WP:NOT relates.

I would also like to point out

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_unencyclopedic which says that to say something is "not encyclopedic" is a circular argument. (Though the that page itself uses the same argument lower down Wikipedia:NOT#When_you_wonder_what_to_do).

I feel that "sending a very wrong message to future editors" may not be a good argument (either decisions are good, or they are not, and getting this right is in its own way sending the correct argument).

A lot of the challenge seems to be to do with whether the article is correct, rather than whether it is notable. If it is not correct, then I think the Wikipedian response is to correct it, rather than delete it.

I think that the deleted material should be replaced - but I feel that if I should do so now it may simply be removed again.

FrankSier (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest asking an uninvolved third party if the Malaysian prime minister anecdote is encyclopedic. As for the tourist books, that they misuse and misrepresent Indonesian and Malaysian bathing styles is not a reason to continue that misrepresentation and present it as fact. As noted above, many Asian countries have similar bathing styles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what is meant by Indonesian and Malaysian bathing styles being "misrepresented". I see that there have been explanations relating what the correct words are, but are you saying that the way of bathing itself is somehow incorrectly described? Is it thought that the article is disparaging or insulting in some way? I do not think that the article itself, anyone in this discussion, or any of the tourist guides has said that there is anything "wrong" with this way of bathing. (There might have been references to people being new to it, or similar. Possibly someone in a reference might have said something disparaging, but is that the point that Crisco 1492 is making?) Also, what is the relevance of other Asian countries having similar bathing styles? FrankSier (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Crisco has said from the start that the guide books are misrepresenting the language - a misrepresentation that your article continues. And, since you use the guide books to define the term, then the whole article is based on the misrepresentation. And Crisco never said anything about it being insulting or disparaging. That was your comment. --Merbabu (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the Prime Ministerial quote, even if it is quite well known, it doesn't help us in anyway to understand the topic. Trivia and "interesting" items are not encyclopaedic. It needs to be informative. --Merbabu (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could I suggest the following: the article is modified to include the correct use of the language as defined by experts in the language, and the use as in guidebooks (which is a real use even if some consider it wrong). Whether this article is kept or not hinges on whether the thing being described is notable or not - not on whether the words used so far to describe it are the correct ones. I think it would be good to include in the article the differing usages of words, and by who. In that sense, this discussion has possibly enriched what could be in the article. (Possibly there is an existing article relating to how different groups of people use words differently? Or maybe this would be a good idea for an article?) (About the subject of "insulting or disparaging" - I agree that those were my words - I was just trying to enquire whether Crisco meant that.) FrankSier (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be WP:DICDEF, and and should be on Wiktionary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Bathing the article has no substance nor has the established it as being WP:NOTABLE, that said it is a form of bathing and that article needs a broader or view the sentence here would fit right in at Bathing#Types of baths if more significant sourcing can be found then it might warrant a separate section. Gnangarra 10:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Bathing, I agree that this would be a good solution, and include under Bathing#Types of baths. FrankSier (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• About the process of Merge (if it is agreed): some of the content of this article was removed, at least part of the reason for this removal seems to have been that it was added after the start of the AfD discussion. (See entry by Merbabu 21:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC) above.) If the article is Merged then that consideration would no longer apply. I am concerned that after a merger this material will be more difficult to access, so that it can be re-considered. There were a number items of extra information that were removed. FrankSier (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Bathing as per Gnangarra. Scooping water to bath is not unique to Indonesia and Malasia. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Bathing as per several editors above. Maratrean (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (or Delete, or Merge) to Bathing. Not every word in every language needs an article here. - Frankie1969 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (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.