Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curious Chinese customs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was - Delete --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
POV collection of claims of dubious authenticity. Even if true, the article's aim seems more suited to a trivia site than an encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 01:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- ran (talk) 02:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I really don't see how this qualified as a candidate for speedy deletion, let alone why you deleted then restored then deleted it in the space of twenty minutes. This seems to me to be a classic case of what should go through the normal deletion process. I'm not restoring it for the moment, but if any non-sysop wants to see it I think we should. No vote as yet. Andrewa 03:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I restored it the first time because I thought that some of it, perhaps, would be helpful to us in writing articles related to the history of China. But afterwards I found that the thing had been copied wholesale from a 180-year-old text on Project Gutenberg. The article talks about Imperial China in the present tense and is outdated to a ridiculous degree. Since it is already on Project Gutenberg there really is no reason why we should "save a copy" on Wikipedia for reference. This is why I speedied it the second time. ran (talk) 04:23, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Since the vote is still on I've restored it: Curious Chinese customs. -- ran (talk) 04:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- delete - "From the 'Canton Register,' the first English Newspaper published in China" dated 1828. The information is outdated, Anglo-centric, bordering on racist, and probably unreliable. "great imperial ceremony of knocking the forehead on the ground thrice three times..." "...pray for felicity towards some domestic idol" this won't be of any use for our purposes... --Jiang 04:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, obsolete, probably somewhat mistaken, PoV information, unhelpful, and seems unreliable even as a potentially cleaned up historical ramble. Wyss 06:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Apparently, no useful content. Andrewa 08:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Assumes the Chinese are still stuck in 1828?insulting. Stombs 09:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- delete agree with above comments. --Boothy443 09:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Copied from [1] Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources -- Curps 09:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
SpeedyDelete as copyvio. Samaritan 10:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Comment: Even if it were a copyvio, copyvios are not speedy delete candidates. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- *sheepish* Oops. Thanks for the clarification! Samaritan 19:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Even if it were a copyvio, copyvios are not speedy delete candidates. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not only is it potentially copyvio (although I think the copyvio has expired in the text), but the title itself is POV and implies that these customs are still valid. The original source is historical and parts of this article are obsolete now. --Deathphoenix 15:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a copyvio if the source is from 1828. Still, at best it is a transwiki to Wikisource. --TenOfAllTrades 15:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. PTMPA. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a primary source, and a spectacularly nn one at that. Szyslak 10:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. dpol 10:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Obsolete, useless factoids. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 02:45, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)