Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanji articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kanji articles

Ichi (kanji) Shichi (kanji) Ku (kanji) Ni (kanji) Go (kanji) Hachi (kanji) Roku (kanji) Ju (kanji) Sen (kanji) Shi (kanji) Haku (kanji) Hyaku (kanji) Sei (kanji)

These articles are all poorly titled dictdefs: their subjects are individual character/morphemes in the Japanese language, making them more suitable for a dictionary, and since many kanji share readings (pronunciations), any titling based on transliteration is inherently ambiguous. Wiktionary in fact already has all of the information in these articles, so there is no transwiki necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 00:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I wish the wiktionary entries were organized more like these. Kappa 02:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, foreign dictionary definitions, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Megan. Radiant_* 13:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Karol 13:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Problematic those articles are, unnecessary not. We cannot have a double standard: wikipedia covers western characters like A, B and etc but not eastern ones. -- Taku 23:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The same (actually more) information is available at Wiktionary. These articles are not like the ones on Latin and Cyrillic letters: those talk about the development of the letterforms, while these are simply pronunciation and definition. And, as I'm sure you're aware, neither on-yomi nor kun-yomi can be used to uniquely identify a kanji, so at the very least these titles are unusable. — Gwalla | Talk 00:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, TakuyaMurata has a point. Kappa 09:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdefs. JamesBurns 11:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Ku (kanji) (for just one example) had as much information as the Wikipedia article on "A", or even if it just had more than the Wiktionary entry for 九 I would have voted to keep. Instead, the Wikipedia article is much less than the Wiktionary article. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, done much better in Wiktionary. And not only can one kanji have several pronunciations, one pronunciation can correspond to a whole pile of different kanji (I can think of three more "sei" kanji off the top of my head...), which would also have their own alternate pronunciations, etc. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 15:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, If there's an "A", then there's a Ku (kanji). Get rid of Ku (kanji), then get rid of "A" and "1" and alpha and aleph. Exactly where is this discussion even coming from? Come on admins, get your act together, this isn't something for a vote but for policy. jeez! 04:47, 2 June 2005 (UTC) unsigned vote by 24.215.106.98 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete. Wiktionary is the right place for these articles. --Tabor 03:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think everyone else summed this up nicely. --KM 14:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't add anymore to whats said! Hohokus 23:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.