Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Pinyin Simplification


 * 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, consensus is that the article is probably original research and fails notability guidelines and that a merge is not appropriate. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Pinyin Simplification

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

Contested prod, removed by author. WP:OR. Author of the article is mentioned in the text, so it's a WP:COI as well. Borders on WP:ADVERT with the mention of an invention. Given references are not secondary sources; fails WP:RS. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pinyin. I was not able to find reliable sources in English. I also could not find sources from Chinese g-hits, although my Chinese is not good enough to be sure about that. I suggest merging it to perhaps a "simplification" section in the Pinyin article.- Samuel  Tan  02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure there's all that much to merge here, to be honest. Nothing is referenced, and I'm not sure that we want to add possible OR text to an already heavily developed article. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources used, and it reads like a proposal and, as such, Original Research. If it had been published so that a number of reliable sources could be used, and it was created and edited by someone without a conflict of interest, then perhaps it could be merged with Pinyin. But as it is, just delete.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete With no reliable sources, there's no reason to keep this rather odd "how to" article, which suggests that you save keystrokes by typing "tag" instead of "tang", or "tio" instead of "tiao", or, worst of all, "hug" instead of "huang". I don't know of any person who would omit a letter from a word in order to make it easier to type; I think it would take longer to remember to not type "n" instead of to type "ng".  No point in "keepig" this article. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Take your choice - behind Door #1 we have Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide; and behind Door #2, it's original research. Either way, this "article" needs to be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2008 (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.