Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiangchun

 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 Move to Jiangjun. Jiangjun article created on August 11 by anon IP, and is basically a copy and paste of this articles text, so I am replacing the teft from this article into Jiangjun. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Chiangchun
i recommend the article to be deleted for the following reasons:

1. "Chiangchun" is a dialect term (Hokkien?) not recognized internationally. i did a google search with "chiangchun" and all results returned were "Chiangchun Harbor", "Chiangchun River" and the likes. This means that the term "chiangchun" is not widely accepted or used at all.

2. The Chinese idea of a general is no different from that in the West. Until perhaps the invention of firearms, leading men of armies around the world often engage in duels to determine the outcome of the conflicts. And whether in China or elsewhere, they do follow a set of honor codes.

Therefore, i believe this article is redundant and should be deleted. --Plastictv 02:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rename to "Jiangjun" to make the transliteration Hanyu Pinyin as per Naming conventions (Chinese). You'll probably get better Google results that way, too.  It's not a different dialect, just a different way of writing the same word in the Latin alphabet. --Jemiller226 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete yeah it looks like a variation of wade-giles, so we should put its content under the pinyin entry. Colinoncayuga 03:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Jemiller226 --Apyule 03:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Movēre(?) to better title. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, as suggested by Jemiller226. --rdnk 15:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, and keep the redirect, of course.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, darnit. Verifiability anyone? Perhaps Wikipedia is not a dictionary? "Jiangjun" tranlsates simply to "general" if you look it up in a Chinese-English dictionary. A Google search for the terms in the article show nothing and I've never heard anything about a clerly defined Chinese martial class or anything similar to knights. Could someone actually confirm these claims before taking them for granted? / Peter Isotalo 00:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless its verifibility and uniqueness from other types of generals is actually shown. It's basically a word that means "general" (the Japanese word Shogun is a cognate that also uses the same characters). --Yuje 11:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
But the article has no content at all, and is not likely to have any. Renaming to "Jiangjun" doesn't help in that sense. --Plastictv 03:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Though I was the first person to defend the article in the original discussion, it was simply based on a hunch I had when I saw that the Google hits were extremely low on "changchun" that it wasn't hanyu pinyin. I was, as I soon found out, correct, so I suggested the move.  I only knew this because I had a single semester of putonghua in college (so I'm not an expert on the language, either).  I cannot, however, claim any real amount of knowledge of Chinese history or her military.  I'm guessing that most people who contribute to Wiki and read the VfD page don't, either, and so I don't want it on my head if an article disappears simply because I don't know a thing about it.  I leave that for the Chinese historians to debate and either improve the article as it stands now or make it a disambig (since apparently it has several meanings). --Jemiller226 05:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea of renaming the article. Unlike how other cultures interpretation about generals, the term were use by chinese in the past more like a collective term for any commanding personal in the military than simpily generals. The term should be seperated to let us identify there is a significant difference between how different cultures defined the role of the generals. --User:wuzika12 011:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The article now is factually incorrect, as there has never been a military class in China - except in periods of foreign rule, in which case the upper-ranking marshalls - but not the officers - are restricted to that race. -Hmib 01:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you guys see where this is leading to? The article might as well be a subsection of "Military history of China". It shouldn't exist as a separate article because "chiangchun" or "jiangjun" are not recognized at all. Let me give you an example of an earlier edit someone made to the article Guan Yu: Guan Yu was a chiangchun (general) under the... Don't you think that it sounds awkward, too? Furthermore, it'd be ridiculous if every Chinese term should have its own article, just because the Chinese perhaps view the subject a little differently from the rest of the world. --Plastictv 13:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Jiangjun in Chinese chess is equivalent to "checkmate", something that article forgot to mention. So at least Jiangjun deserves to stay. As for chiangchun, I think it needs to go. :D -Hmib 03:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mate, that's the same as saying the Chinese chess equivalent of the King in the International Chess is "jiangjun". Should we then start a "Ju" article, which is the equivalent of the Castle, or a "Ma" article, the counterpart of the Knight, and so forth? Anyway, when used as a verb, "jiangjun" could mean either "check" or "checkmate". It could be mentioned in one breath in the Chinese chess article. --Plastictv 07:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * With 3 different meanings that may not be all that apparent to the non-Chinese mind, I don't see why it shouldn't stay, though. -Hmib 16:21, 15 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.