Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San zhi xiao zhu

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 Keep with a strong suggestion to merge this to Three Little Pigs.--Isotope23 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San zhi xiao zhu

San zhi xiao zhu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

not notable. at least i never heard of it Dontuloveme 08:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge-to Three Little Pigs, as Chinese Wikipedia has. This article appears to be a less than accurate transwiki translation from the Chinese Wikipedia article. The online article cited in the English Wikipedia article appears to be covering the said issue - although a more accurate translation is needed as it is published in Chinese. The issue is not notable enough for its own article and will never have enough content for its own article. Luke! 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. JCO312 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Someone reasonably surefooted in Chinese and English may want to reword this; as written, it's rather confusing. Questions: are there significant differences in Asian versions of the story as opposed to the Western one? Where did the story originate? These things would make the section more interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability. Never heard of it. Retiono Virginian 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I live in singapore and i have heard of it. It defnitnly can be expanded. The news is very hot in taiwan. ~~`~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaiFei (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
  • To above two editors and nominator, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not subjective: Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this has no notability as an English term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It has reliable sources. WP:N doesn't mention language at all as a criterion. If something is notable, it's notable period, regardless of language. The article could use a better name, sure, but that's a separate issue. cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As you are responding to my vote, note that the article has been expanded significantly since that time (per CaliforniaAliBaba below). It still lacks context; I've read it several times and I still have no idea what the point is. Vote changed to weak keep. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You may be missing the point because (IMO) it's a really stupid, pointless controversy in the first place. Basically, chengyu are traditional phrases which reference old literature (sometimes thousands of years old), poetry, folk sayings, etc., and whose meaning isn't readily apparent unless you know the stories behind them. Hence the need for chengyu dictionaries. People who view dictionaries as prescribing correct usage rather than describing existing usage are thus all up in arms about the official national dictionary being polluted with popular culture that lacks time depth. Or to put it in Wiki terms, they think it's fancruft and want it AfD'd. =) (Unfortunately, the above summary qualifies as WP:OR, so I can't put it in the article) ... cheers, cab 07:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, expand, and think of a better name. Notable controversy due to non-trivial coverage in many reliable sources [1], including at least one non-local one (Ta Kung Pao). cab 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Expanded beyond sub-stub and further sources added. cab 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well done! I still wonder, though, whether it's going to be easier for uses of the English language Wikipedia to find this if it's merged at the Three Little Pigs article, as opposed to appearing under the current title. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe a title like "Three Little Pigs chengyu controversy" or something. So far, the only coverage in English is from Eastsouthwestnorth [2], so it's hard to say what the English name should be. cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per cab. If it's notable in itself as a controversy, it's worthy of an article. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above FirefoxMan 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Arguments to keep based on the news story are ill-founded: news coverage does not equal notability. Notability other than newsworthiness is not proven. Sorry. WMMartin 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with that if we were talking about one or two newspaper articles in the Podunk Times on a slow news day, but there's now 131 Google News hits on this. cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to four-character idiom (chengyu redirects there). This controversy, at its heart, is not about the Three Little Pigs. It is about what defines the limits of a linguistics term. Its inclusion in the term's article seems appropriate to me. Serpent's Choice 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the prior merge arguments were made when the article was a substub; given the length of the article now, merging to four-character idiom would unbalance that page (though a link from there seems appropriate). Also it isn't purely a linguistic controversy, but also a political one (the dictionary was put online over a year ago, but only started getting news coverage recently, tied in with a scandal with the Ministry of Education head Tu Sheng-cheng's son). cab 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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.