Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures


 * 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   snowball keep - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nn memes. Zhongyunghe (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * comment: I am not familiar with the language of the references so feel uneasy about passing judgment here. However I did find interesting points (in English) raised in the talk page hereto: Quality improvements and also Media coverage. Media coverage refers to a French source (I can read French). This source claims that the creatures originated as a Wiki hoax! Without being able to comment on the Chinese text, I think that some of the English sources may meet notability guidelines, eg New York Times. Looks like a difficult case. In my opinion, opinions of editors familiar with the language of the references should be given before passing judgment. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and suggest early closure. Whatever else can be said about the subject, the reason given for deletion is entirely too insubstantial to justify debating the suitability of an article that appears to be impressively referenced to mostly foreign language sources.  Note also that starting this AfD is apparently this user's only edit.  This is particularly problematic when the subject of the article apparently involves tweaking the noses of Red Chinese censors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Quote Czar Brodie: "This source claims that the creatures originated as a Wiki hoax!" No, rather it is a Baidu Baike hoax. This article is about the meme which arose from the hoax. This event is very significant in Chinese modern culture, ask any Chinese netizen and they would have heard of it. Also, it also has to do with resistance against censorship. This meme is very notable, saying that it is non-notable is blatant ignorance. Zhongyunghe, this AfD nomination is without justification, reason or negational evidence, and is therefore a Argument from ignorance. If you've had the time to research, I can assure you that you will definitely change your mind. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Zhongyunghe was only created very recently, and had his first edit at 11:24, 31 March 2009 on Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures, see Special:Contributions/Zhongyunghe. So far he has only had three edits, on Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures, Articles for deletion/Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures and Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 31. Possibly a single-use troll. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "Zhong yang he" (中央和) means "Chinese Central harmony", central referring to government, harmony possibly linking to nationalism. I'd say he is possibly a politically-driven troll, given by the details present at this time. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding the user's intentions, what the user should have done if he were to have a disagreement with the article, is to put a message on the talk page beforehand. A direct AfD appears suspicious, is inconsiderate to those who have contributed in good faith, with good faith, and resembles trolling, especially as the AfD process appears to be the only edits by the user. This is how I interpret everything. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 05:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * regarding my quote, the French source (which is referred to in the article) states "Tout a commencé lorsqu’un Chinois a mis en ligne sur le Wikipédia local, Baidupedia, une fiche sur cette fausse créature...", which translates as "the hole thing started when a Chinese person put on line in the local Wikipedia, Baidupedia, a page on this false creature...". I was not aware of this being a reference to Baidu Baike, as when I clicked on the link at the French site (the link being the words sur le Wikipédia local, Baidupedia ) this directed me to Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures at wekipedia. re very notable, can you translate some of the references to shew what they are and how they address the subject? re User:Zhongyunghe, I think it is not correct to read into an editors name or motivations, nor to refer to the editors amount of posts; see WP:ADHOM. All are permitted to take an article to this Articles for Deletion page, whether they be members of the Chinese government or not. What is at question here is not User:Zhongyunghe but the article Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Please do not make presumptions on other users. What is at question here is whether the article is notable (at last I think this is what is meant by "nn", ie WP:NN). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Zhongyunghe's statement: "nn memes." How can you justify that it is non-notable without any backup argument? This AfD should not have even surfaced in the first place.
 * Do a google.cn or baidu.com search for "草泥马" and tell me how many results you get. Also check Baidu Tieba.
 * This meme has been mentioned in the New York Times, France 24, how is it non-notable?
 * The Chinese government has criticized the publicity of the meme. This is how serious it is.
 * Regarding quality, I believe that this article meets WP standards. Check how many views this article has. This article has even been slashdotted.
 * There are Chinese and Japanese WP articles on the meme. Why aren't they up for AfD?
 * If this article is so controversial to the point that it attracts trolls, why don't we protect the page?
 * There are a few English sources. Do any of them contradict to what has been stated in the article, and by myself here?
 * These are my arguments. Kindest regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep A very notable subject in China, very famous. Fits wikipedia perfectly. Also, this exists on other projects as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Czar Brodie regarding sources: Sources are as follows:


 * 1) 【贴图】百度十大神兽_水能载舟亦能煮粥 - A description of every single animal in the meme.
 * 2) Hoax dictionary entries about legendary obscene beasts - Eng source describing the meme.
 * 3) Wines, Michael (11 March 2009). "A Dirty Pun Tweaks China’s Online Censors". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/asia/12beast.html?em. Retrieved on 12 March 2009. - NY Times report on the meme.
 * 4) 山寨版“动物世界”介绍草泥马走红网络_资讯_凤凰网 (Phoenix TV official website) - Phoenix TV article regarding the meme.
 * 5) 网友创造"十大神兽" 百度百科沦为粗口百科 - CNBETA article, explains that the meme is widespread in China.
 * 6) 网友创造“十大神兽” 百度百科难避低俗质疑 CCTV.com 中国中央电视台 - China Central Television brief details on Cao Ni Ma.
 * 7) The Song of the Grass Mud Horse - YouTube - Meme video
 * 8) 国新办等七部委开展整治互联网低俗之风专项行动 - net.china.cn regarding internet filtering
 * 9) 对传播低俗内容网站的曝光与谴责(第5号) - more on internet filtering
 * 10) Chinese Bloggers’ Respond to the Internet Crackdown - China Digital Times - ENG source, explains the relation to censorship in China
 * 11) 世界四大珍稀物种雅蠛蝶，草泥马 ，法克鱿，菊花蚕(有图有真相) - Info on the 4 main animals
 * 12) 百度贴吧 十大神兽吧 - from Baidu Tieba, meme info
 * 13) 百度十大神器 = a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Mythical Weapons"
 * 14) 百度十大神秘美食 - 金枫网络 - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
 * 15) 卧槽，又来一个！百度十大神秘美食 - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
 * 16) Example of meme following: CCTV Fire: Funny Photoshops By Chinese Netizens, chinaSMACK (Resulting from manipulated images of the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire)
 * 17) 草泥马 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 18) 2009科普之--草泥马(原创整理)
 * 19) 童声合唱《草泥马之歌》 - Youtube - Meme video
 * 20) 动物世界特别篇 马勒戈壁上的草泥马! - Youtube - Meme video
 * 21) 什么是草泥马 - Youtube - Meme video
 * 22) Plush Your Mother: Grass Mud Horse Dolls In China - details of the plush dolls being sold in China.
 * 23) 法克鱿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 24) 雅蠛蝶 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 25) 菊花蚕 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 26) 鹑鸽 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 27) 吉跋猫 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 28) 尾申鲸 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 29) 吟稻雁 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 30) 鹳狸猿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 31) 达菲鸡 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
 * 32) 潜烈蟹 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.

Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is clearly notable, as it has had non-trivial coverage in multiple publications in more than one country, thus satisfying WP:N. The French quote refers to Baidu Baike as 'the Chinese Wikipedia', which initself is irrelevant to the issue. The key is that this hoax has been widely reported and the 'animals' are widely referred to by Chinese citizens on the Internet. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Having gone through the references (I do not speak Chinese so my view may be flawed), I can come to the following summary: 1) the article is about a hoax, however Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes, see WP:NOHOAXES. 2) while many if not most of the sources are self published WP:SPS, i.e. youtube, open wikis, (the Chinese wiki Baidu Baike), blogs (PhoenixTV)...etc, some of these sources may pass WP:SELFPUB (but not all). 3) Several of the references do give credible notability, e.g. The New York Times. 4) My concern is that the self published references outbalance the notable references (see 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources at WP:SELFPUB); and there are few English references, (see WP:NONENG). However, to many self published sources and not enough English sources is not, in my view, reason to delete. The article needs a good clean up, not deletion. Article can claim to have notability, accordingly - keep. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC). post scriptum thanking User:benlisquare for the list of references, but I had noted them on articles page. CB. post post scriptum, an amusing thought, it is the 1st of April, how appropriate. CB.


 * Keep: Notetable subject both within China and oversea Chinese community, important subject within the topic Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China, noted by New York Times and several human rights group as notable efforts by Chinese to overcome state censorship, and some new Chinese characters were created for this meme. And lol at the User: "River Crab" Jim101 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just posted a number of reliable sources as external links, which I intend to incorporate as references into the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although it is about a hoax, it is nonetheless a notable subject that is thoroughly cited with credible news sources. Why delete a perfectly normal article? The nominator User:Zhongyunghe seems like a one-time hit-and-run troll.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep: Cultural phenomenon in the world's largest country that's been called "an icon of resistance to censorship." Clearly at least as notable as Don't tase me bro. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep = It's notable enough to have received interest in two foreign (from China's point of view) countries, France and the US. It received full articles in the New York Times, considered the American paper of record, and Le Monde, France's paper of record.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2009 (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.