Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between written English and written 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between written English and written Chinese

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

Arbitrary cross-categorization. Why is this more encyclopedic than a comparison between written Chinese and written, say, Korean, Hindi, Arabic, Cree, etc.? For that matter, why not between Chinese and French, Spanish, German, and other languages whose writing system is similar to English? Maybe the argument will be "but this is en-wiki, so English is special, and it's encyclopedic to show how Chinese writing is different from English"; in that case, this whole article could just be subsumed in an article about the Chinese writing system. In fact, the article already is almost entirely about Chinese writing. Anything that's encyclopedic and not already articles such as Written Chinese and Chinese grammar can be sent there, and this article can be deleted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be arguing for a merger not a deletion. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a full merger. This is an unencyclopedic topic, like I said, so there's no point having an article on it. If there is content worth keeping, it belongs in another article, but that doesn't mean I'm proposing a merger, it just means the deletion should be handled that way. Removing most of an article's content and maybe moving a bit of it to another article is tantamount to deletion (even if you leave a redirect, although I don't think it's necessary in this case), and things that are tantamount to deletion generally need consensus, which is why I opened a discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only actual content that corresponds to the article title is OR, and there's not much there. Most of the current content are misnomers (since they deal with translation/borrowed content between the languages rather than comparison between the written languages). --Nlu (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that some of the information here can be mentioned in Chinese language. In looking through here, I see lots of different original observations, only a few of which seem to have any connection to the title. If the intent was to compare written English and written Chinese, I can't find it in here. I would think that the same comparisons would apply between the Chinese system of ideographs (a character stands for a word) and any system that uses "phonemes" (each symbol standing for a sound); in other words, written Chinese would have the same comparisons with written Spanish, or, for that matter, written Hebrew. To the extent that there is something that hasn't already been said somewhere else, it can be referred to in the article Written Chinese. Mandsford 14:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH all the way. Ravenswing 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:' classic WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *splutter* ----Divebomb is not British 14:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unencyclopaedic topic. Otherwise why not have "difference between 'x' and 'y'" for every language pair? If the answer is this in the English WP then a comparison is unneeded as ever language is described (in English and so on this WP) relative to, or in terms of, English to some extent. The content is very arbitrary (Japanese loan words?) and in some places just wrong (pronouns rarely used in Chinese??).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:46, 24 November 2010 (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.