Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese copy


 * 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   redirect to Counterfeit consumer goods. (If you all feel Shanzhai would be a better destination, that works too.) Shi  meru  06:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese copy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Declined speedy added by another user, but clearly this article has major POV issues (which may not quite rise to the level of an attack on the entire Chinese manufacturing industry). The article itself appears to be trying to legitimize that the term "Chinese copy" is notable, but the references all which use the words in order do not use the term as a derogatory noun, but rather with "copy" being a verb. Suggest either a massive POV cleanup, or redirection to knockoff (which itself is a redirect). 7 03:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The fundamental validity of this page should be questioned. The term was not coined by any form of public media nor is the definition of the term appended by any source. The only sources one can see from the page are those of the example's, which do not even mentioned the term "Chinese Copy" on any occasion. Furthermore, judging from the page creator's history, this user has not even edited many WP pages, before creating this one.Ao333 (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep ghits show the term exists and is generally used in the context identified by the article. GSMR (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that the article has major POV issues which is why I tagged it. I don't think it should be deleted as the term Chinese copy is quite well known in many circles. It's even defined on Merriam-Webster online. The term Chinese Copycat also appears to be in wide use as well. Vedant (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "an exact imitation or duplicate that includes defects as well as desired qualities" is what the Merriam-webster says. Evidently, the article is largely biased in providing no "desired qualitiy" side to the article. I concede to a major edit, if the page will only contain sources which include the term "Chinese Copy." Otherwise, the article would just be a hoax, defined by people of the Indian ethnicity as both GSMR and Vedant's contribution history shows.Ao333 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think your tripe merits a well thought out response. I think a 'lolumad?' will suffice here.  I thought you already received your last warning for personal and racial attacks?  If only I was allowed to edit war on your talk page like you seem to think you are on Vedant's... oh, phew, good thing I have everything saved here.  GSMR (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know I'm of Indian ethnicity? Are you implying racial bias exists? Perhaps I'm mistaken it most but it certainly appears to exist in your case. But then again, what do Indians know right? Apparently they live 10 years less than the average Japanese or Chinese individual and on average have 22% less IQ points. I mean after all the Indians are grouped with the Africans and while possessing 1/6th of the human population only possess 2% of the world's health? Well that's according to what you said here anyways. The internet is such a wonderful tool and I think it helps us really understand each other and co-operate on a myriad of different topics. Vedant (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge somewhere Sounds just like "Cheap Japanese knockoff" term used in the 70's 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this page; it's ridiculous. I do not even see one source defining the term. And the sources to the examples don't even mention the term! It sounds just like the "cheap Japanese knockoff" as the guy above says.117.85.64.95 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible meatpuppet. GSMR (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you claim that? Just because someone agreed with my opinion?? 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter. As a general rule, if a person has logged in and registered an opinion, it's given weight by the closing administrator.  If a person hasn't logged in, or hasn't registered a user name, then it doesn't really have much effect on the outcome.  Ten IP addresses could say "keep" and it wouldn't stop the article from being deleted if that were the consensus of regular contributors.  Mandsford 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This IP's first and only edit is on this vote. That's why I said it's a possible meatpuppet. GSMR (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs more sourcing, but what I see so far shows that certain products are described in magazines and other publications as reverse-engineered or imitation of style and then marketed in or by the People's Republic of China. And frankly, I'd like to see an article about things that were described as "cheap Japanese knockoffs" as well, not sure why that would be considered non-notable.  It would be one thing if it was the author's personal opinion, but it's quite another if it is something described in reliable and verifiable sources.  Mandsford 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article suffered from recentism but the concept goes back to the early 20th century at least (the OED has an interesting Hansard quotation from 1920). I have added some citations and the article may be improved further in accordance with our editing policy.  Note also that the nomination suggests cleanup or redirection, neither of which require deletion.  The new admin User:7 should please familiarise himself with our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NAD. The article isn't about a particular concept, it's about a phrase, and belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Claritas § 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Counterfeit consumer goods. Same concept basically. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Google book search shows ample results. The law of unfair competition and trade-marks, Volume 1‎ - Page 249 Rudolf Callmann, United States - Law - 1950 - 3020 pages mentions the term "Chinese Copy".  I read the article and clicked through the links, and the term was used, and still is used for many things.  Sorting through sources is difficult, because you get so many results with the words "Chinese copy" followed by the name of something they are copying, as oppose to it being used as a term.  Chinese knock-off is also something I see used at times.  That country does have people copying every single thing imaginable over there, from Mickey Mouse ears and the back of the Kellogg's Corn Flakes box, to expensive cars, and aircraft.  After being shown around Home Depot, some started their own company in China that sells the same thing, in the same way, and even has people wearing orange aprons like they do at Home Depot.  Just part of the culture.   D r e a m Focus  03:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As Vedant pointed out, the dictionary even defines it, it used since 1920.   D r e a m Focus  03:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course copying exists in China. The question is (given that it exists in other countries as well — try "Mexican" next? —  whether we need a separate article specifically, over and beyond mentions in Counterfeit consumer goods and — I just noticed -- Shanzhai. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete & Redirect to Counterfeit consumer goods due to it being a WP:POVFORK and it can be little more than a WP:DICDEF if systematic bias removed. Verbal  chat  15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect /merge  to Counterfeit consumer goods or Shanzhai. "Chinese copy" is another term for exactly the same thing; there's no need for two three articles here. We could easily make up similar articles for "Japanese copy", "Mexican copy" and so on, but it's all covered by the existing article. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MAD which explains why merger and deletion are distinct processes which may not be used together because that would violate our licensing terms. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've struck out "merge". There's nothing particularly worth merging anyway. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Shanzhai, which as far as I can tell covers more-or-less the same concept. The term 'Chinese copy' is sufficiently notable that it needs its own article. Robofish (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Shanzhai, Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China, or both.-- Pink Bull  20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hadn't noticed that one. So along with Counterfeit consumer goods, we have three other articles covering the same ground as this one; there's no good reason for keeping another. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete silly, racist article with no sources which define the term. A merge or redirect is also possible per the above comments.   Snotty Wong   talk 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term isn't well-defined by good sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:53, 18 June 2010 (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.