Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 08:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification (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)

Unreferenced, no encyclopedic context. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

• Keep - Firstly, this isn't explaining a definition but more of a chinese linguistics topic - so in that sense it's definitely suited. Source-wise, there are quite a few out there covering this area, e.g. Chinese the Easy Way, The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, Making Sense of Written Texts in Chinese. The bottom half of the article seems rather unhelpful, but that isn't cause for article deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- 2nd half of the article really match what nom said, this list is totally unnecessary. Yes, it is a chinese linguistic topic, but can't this small section be included in the Simplified_Chinese_characters#Consistency, actually it is already (part of it I say) included in it and this section can cover. I don't see any expansion is neeeded as this page doesn't add any content there. I feel that the sources above can be added to the section of the main article Simplified_Chinese_characters to make that particular section stronger. I don't see the need for any independent article. However, the topic of this may be what people typed on Google so no harm redirecting to the main article. --Quek157 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wiktionary: This table feels really well suited to an appendix over at the English Wiktionary. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  may I know which page you have in mind? --Quek157 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Quek157: wikt:Appendix:Han script, to be linked from wikt:Wiktionary:About Han script and perhaps wikt:Template:Han simp. See wikt:Appendix:Hiragana script for comparison. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Quek157 and Mxn: would disagree with both the redirect and the move (transwiki, here) suggestions. The consistency case doesn't actually cover the ambiguities section, it is (unsurprisingly) more consistency based which isn't synonymous. You could of course add the content to it, but merging in that fashion shouldn't be done via AfD (which is more merging only where keep couldn't be suitable) - and as a linguistics topic with decent available references, keep is suitable. If kept, it could of course go through proper merging consideration with proper consideration on both pages.

Responsemy take is that after close examination of the page this can well be an added info on that section. there is neither notability that is addressed in your opposition, verified sources as well as fundamentally is it suitable as an encyclopedic topic. Of course if all are met I will be for to keep. I will say delete per norm but redirect/transwiki are thinking hard to save this page valuable information and giving it into a place to stay. I am a native Chinese speaker and reader and upon close examination, I see no difference between what is said here and on the page I mentioned. Mxn is not wrong for transwiki either I am just wondering which page as it is clearly more suitable there. This is wp:notguide clearly --Quek157 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wiktionary, it might well contribute there (I'm all in favour of some suitable duplication), but it should only be removed from here if it isn't suitable - and as a functional standalone linguistics topic it is. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why not? if it is better at another project more suitable in that sense Quek157 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that logic almost no linguistics topics should be allowed articles here, no event articles (should be at wikinews), no books (all at wikibooks), and so on and so forth. Each project has a sphere, which do have overlap zones, but the article can be suitable for both. In a more civil fashion by me, I'd put it this way - so long as it is suitable for the project, our purpose is to be beneficial to project users - which would probably be a degree of duplication. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just making it clear, I never meant this. WP:N and WP:NOT must both be fulfilled to qualify a page on Wikipedia. So far "beneficial", "suitable" are brought out, but no more. As I said, if you have proper arguments for both the above, I will not hesitate to change my vote to a keep. But so far there is none. I don't wish to bring this out but this is so WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. --Quek157 (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:N seemed answered to me by my initial Keep vote at the top. Regarding WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, I do not see how the article could be claimed to have "leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, For the books I analyzed the content, only 1 part is on ambigurity (3rd book), under that it is the ambigurity in simplification which is perfectly suited for the consistency part of the entire main article, others are just intro. The guidebook I will say it really doesn't mention anything, but just reinforce the idea of WP:NOTGUIDE. For the first book, I can't see (not available here) so I cannot comment. But these serves as verification for the section (or sources) on the main article, not a new one. --Quek157 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC) For clarity, no sources I see is sufficient to meet notability --Quek157 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I missed @Mxn: reply, as I am caught up in too much of Afd, good place to transwiki for the table. For the text and maybe a slight few examples can be in the main article Chinese language (as I pointed out above), so part transwiki, part redirect seems the best --Quek157 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is an encyclopedic topic. Whether the large tables are suited for wikipedia or not, the lede section is sufficient for a standalone stub. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2018 (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.