Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwohngdongwaa pengyam

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. 00:13, 8 Jan 2005 Jiang

Gwohngdongwaa pengyam
This appears to be original research with no references available online. No evidence to support the use of this romanization system by anyone but the author. - Jpo 21:17, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

See also Votes for deletion/Penkyamp.


 * keep You probably made a typo when you did online search. Also, as you might have noticed, it is referenced in the template table for Chinese romanization. I am pretty sure this makes the article visible to experts to judge its fate without our intervention. Mikkalai 23:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, Mikkalai. I do consider myself reasonably competent on Google, and searched on the literal spelling (cut-and-paste, to rule out typos) as well as several variants that seemed reasonable, given the odd spelling in the original article.  Google turns up a hundred or so hits for 'Gwohndongwaa', which I diligently waded through, only to find that they're almost all from sites that scrape their content from Wikipedia.  The sole exception turns out to be this discussion thread from someone with the same doubts about the legitimacy of this romanization system.  On the question of the template, I don't agree that its presence in Template:RCL is a bona-fide indicator of its accuracy.  The template content is user-driven like the rest of Wikipedia, and I don't see anything there that indicates that "experts" have approved the inclusion of this system on the list.  I would look more favorably on this article if there were any relevant references, but as it stands now, it is simply an assertion of the superiority of the author's romanization system, with no supporting evidence. - Jpo 23:58, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank yoy for detailed explanations. About the template: all what I am saying is that including into template makes the article visible to experts, unlike the case of an orphaned article linked from nowhere. And I am pretty sure that those who wrote articles about romanizations keep the eye on the topic. So if it is a hype or nonnotable, it must be detected very soon by those who know things not only from google. The above doesn't mean that I don't respect your opinion. thank you. Mikkalai 01:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the article is here for more than a year, so it can become kind of "self-fulfilling prophecy". I will pose the question to the original contributor. Mikkalai 01:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at Menchi's explanation at Votes for deletion/Penkyamp. None of us here are experts on the subject. Penkyamp fell through the cracks and so did this one.--Jiang 19:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, never seen or heard of this topic on the internet (except here). Megan1967 01:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of peer-review, acceptance among linquists, most likely original research. Wyss 01:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am the Wikipedian who asked the question in the above mentioned forum, and until today I still cannot find any reference of it that is unrelated to Wikipedia. See also Talk:Gwohngdongwaa pengyam. That system is just a minor modification of the Penkyamp system. We can keep all information by describing it as a variant within the Penkyamp article. I originally planned to request for VfD after doing some clean up on Cantonese Romanization. -- Felix Wan 01:51, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * Delete. This personal invention is not authentic, as I noted in the Talk page last year: "Zero hit on Google". --Menchi 01:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Menchi.--Jiang 19:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasons as Menchi. Wikipedia isn't a place for original research. --Xiaopo &#8465; 20:43, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. This article is a detailed and informative one. A Google test cannot tell whether this method exists or not (sorta benefit of doubt). -- 10:36, January 2005, UTC

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.