Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art


 * 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.

Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is very much written in an essay style. In addition it is difficult to tell how relevant/reliable the references are because they are generally not in English. I'm not even sure that the title is correct, and/or if the information here should be merged into another article. The only contributor to this article (who does have significant edits elsewhere) created a "main article" link from East Asian calligraphy, but there's little in this article that isn't already in that article. This is probably a weak AFD, so maybe someone will see it and rescue it, but primarily this nomination is on the grounds of no indication the information warrants its own article, as most of the info is in the parent article. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The "debate" mentioned in the title seems to originate more in the author's mind than in any source he references. The article seems to go a very long way to say "handwriting is prosaic, calligraphy is art".  The author's interpretation of the word calligraphy as meaning "hand written" is incorrect, as the term actually means "beautifully written".  As this term and the author's misconception about its true meaning seem to be at the heart of the "debate", the article is pretty much meaningless from the very start.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with nominator, it appears to be an essay, possibly original research, with inaccessible sources for most English speakers. If there is such a debate in scholarly circles, information about it in English should be available.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not having english sources isnt very strong criteria for deletion WP:NONENG.
 * Comment - perhaps. But the lack of sources is. There are essentially 2 cites. The first footnote is not a cite; some Chinese book (something scholarly?) from 1936 is cited twice (zero page reference, for something in 3 volumes it's too vague to call verifiable), then some video (not the most convenient format) from a source of hard to assess reliability is cited 5 times. Given the extensive amount of scholarly research in East Asian studies, it'd be surprising, if the debate was notable, that there would be no English sources at all.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:ESSAY it's essentially the basic arguments of Art applied to a specific topic. --Savonneux (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I'm the user who lead and wrote most (by far) of East Asian calligraphy. This debate issue was too longly state by User:Asoer to stay in the core article, so I summarized it and I moved the it to a separate article, but this is, for sure, a real debate in Chinese calligraphic circles. This article need clean up (essay style, add sources), yes. But please don't use English web for this issue, most English articles on-line about Chinese arts are exaggerating and advertisement oriented. Yug (talk)  06:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep with suggestion The way the article is written and the obscurity of the topic attracts the eyes of nonspecialists who are therefore inclined to suggest that this article be deleted. This debate leaves such a small footprint that there is basically no way you'll know of it unless you can speak/read Chinese and you're specifically looking for it. Consider naming the article "Definition and classification of Chinese calligraphy." (Sources cited in the article are specifically about writing Han characters and no other scripts.) Within, you may write about the debate/disagreement. Right now, I find it is of sufficient length to have its own article. You may want to summarize even further on East Asian calligraphy. Furthermore, as suggested above, the lack of English sources (or any sources) is not grounds for deletion of content. But this is part of a bigger problem on Wikipedia, which I'll write about in Talk:Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art. Asoer (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: My original nomination was primarily for "lack of information warranting its own article." I still stand by this; there is very little extra in this article that's not in the primary article. I also stick by the WP:ESSAY comments, but those aren't as important to this AFD. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is indeed a significant topic, however incorporating it into the East Asian calligraphy article would make a long article even longer. But if all else fails, merge with main article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated, most of this is already in the main article. And this isn't paper, so article length isn't a good keep reason. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a question of balance. This debate is a minor, very peripheral, meaningless experts' debate. This debate is not as important as the Four treasures, the Scripts, Techniques, Evaluation, etc. Accordingly, it just need a quick citation in East Asian calligraphy, and not 20 lines, which may have their own article. Yug (talk)  08:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ESSAY, WP:NONENG, and WP:OR. This article is quite small and, whatever info that can be reliably sourced could easily be merged into Calligraphy or some other appropriate parent article.  The title of this article and its contents are original research, and no information regarding this debate can be obtained in reliable sources.     talk 23:18, 8 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.