Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proverbs commonly said to be Chinese

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The result was Withdrawn. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proverbs commonly said to be Chinese

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the topic of Chinese proverbs is, of course, notable (and I may even try to create such an article myself), this weirdly titled and unreferenced WP:ESSAY/WP:OR mess featuring an unreferenced template from 2010 needs to go. (WP:TNT, etc.). Related to this, the weird disambig-like mess at Chinese proverb should also go (WP:SPEEDY?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC) PS. Please note that the article has been significantly expanded since the nomination. The nominated version looked like this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, WP:OR CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Folk etymology. Made more sense in 2008, but was always original research. Related, Chinese proverb should probably redirect to Chengyu. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Xiehouyu has some issues, which I've attempted to begin a discussion about. Folly Mox (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ideally to Chinese Proverb which could be cleaned up into a proper disambiguation page containing both Xiehouyu and Chengyu. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Proverb, maybe a section "Attributed to be Chinese" (not a good name, but I can't think of a better one right now). Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 15:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A section on a non-existent page? That makes no sense. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just ridiculous and unencyclopedic. A redirect would only make sense if this were a plausible search term, which it clearly is not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would turn this article inside out and make the subsection the main topic, and then rename to chinese proverb, deleting the pointless redirect to WikiQuote that is currently there. The "Authentic Chinese origin" is the real meat, and the "commonly said to be Chinese" is a minor sub-topic, if that. It is the edit history currently at chinese proverb that is of no use, containing nothing but redirects, cross-wiki or to List of Chinese proverbs. This edit history could actually be turned into something, with a bit of renaming and refactoring, and might well have begun at chinese proverb, and started out the right way out, had that mess not been there since 2003 when this was created in 2005. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G, Bottom line, this is a notable topic, but nothing here is rescuable. Well, some of this may be true, but it still requires verification. For what it's worth, I've added this topic to my 'to do' list. Also, just in case anyone cares, some of my Korean students are trying to write an article on Korean proverbs (sandbox draft) and could use friendly feedback (I've already given them mine). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that there's stuff here that's rescuable, and I'd rename and refactor right now if chinese proverb weren't in the way. I already found one interesting source that lists Chinese books of Chinese proverbs that could be used to expand, although I wouldn't be able to type their Hanzi titles in myself. I'm leery of making use of admin delete-and-move tools in an AFD discussion. I'll ask for a {{db-move}}. Uncle G (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Uncle G:, if you can provide a link to the source you found, my mobile device should be able to input the titles in Hanzi. I'd be interested and willing to help build out the article we intend to expand. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look for where I've put {{lang|zh|&zwnj;}} in the wikitext. Sources with the Hanzi are in the article, which is now the right way out. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rescuable, but why to Chinese Proverb and not Chinese proverbs. Iknow we usually use th singularform, but it sounds strange here. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Chinese proverbs per Uncle G's and DGG's suggestion. Following today's expansion by Uncle G, there's clearly enough content here to warrant an article. Daß Wölf 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I have removed an unreferenced section (I trie and failed to find sources for this). Please note that the article is now completely rewritten - it contains no content it had when I nominated it, outside the categories and templates :> The article has been effectively WP:TNTed and written anew, so this AfD is effectively moot. I fully support renaming to "Chinese proverbs", if the closer feels like doing so, otherwise a technical RM may be needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the first two sentences of the current article were there when you nominated it. Ironically, the second sentence turned out to be directly verifiable from a source that I found — its first page, no less. ☺ Almost all of the stuff below Special:Permalink/1008865890#Authentic Chinese origin is still there. I said that there's stuff that was rescuable, and that the article was inside-out. Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is no longer the unsourced article that was nominated for deletion, but a completely different one. Having been kept, it could be moved to Chinese Proverb(s). Seems to me it is lacking a section on "Confucius he say", but that might need a lot of policing. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2021 (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.