Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin slang


 * 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 no consensus. I didn't quite like the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in some of the keeps, but Corpx's arguments seemed to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with other appropriate arguments to cover it. However, both sides had good arguments overall, hence the "no consensus." — Kurykh  23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mandarin slang

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a list of Chinese words and their definitions - Clear violation of WP:NOT which says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Corpx 06:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy keep - Improve, don't delete. It's clearly a descriptive article, not a list, rich with text describing mainland Chinese mores and how these translate into various slang an colloquial terms, something that is invaluable and cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet. "Contributions" of the editor proposing to delete seem to consist primarily not of enhancing our content but instead looking through pages for ones to nominate for deletion. We can't allow this sort of disruptive behavior. Badagnani 07:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that its not found elsewhere on the internet should not be a reason to keep this article.  This is also a list of neologisms, in Chinese.   Avoid neologisms advices against creating articles about neologisms, coupled with the fact that this is a list of foreign language neologisms in the English wikipedia makes it worse.    Also, I dont see how any of my contributions are relevant in this AFD nomination.   This AFD should be judged on the merits, not my contributions.   Corpx 07:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, how are these neologisms? Lu Xun called "Ta ma de" the "national swearword" in 1925 (famous essay ), that's a bit old for WP:NEO. "Wang ba" goes back for millenia . The fact that the page is about a foreign language is neither here or there; enwiki is an encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia restricted to Anglosphere topics. cab 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that those 2 words on that page may not be neologisms, but what about 99% of the rest of the list?  From the 2nd word's URL, it seems like a dictionary service where you looked up the item.  I think it should be there, not here.  Corpx 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a Mandarin slang dictionary. --Haemo 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that humor, or are you just making this up?  Cool Blue  talk to me 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Only the middle part violates WP:WINAD; the intro itself could make a decently encyclopedic stub, though unsourced. Topic itself is also clearly notable and easily source-able. . Plenty to say here --- e.g. the story of how tongzhi (comrade) evolved from being a Communist form of address into a slang term for homosexuals. cab 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would categorize that as original research per Avoid neologisms due to the lack of sources. Corpx 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OR refers to novel, unpublished interpretations, not "I've never heard of it and I don't want to look for a source". The above phenomenon is heavily documented. Start from page 1-2 of, which mentions the first usage of the term with the meaning "homosexual" and the controversy it provoked. cab 00:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions.   cab 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * um, (weak) keep? I think it's a bit urban dictionary in its current form, but as a sociolinguistic article, quite interesting and useful. Kripto 10:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not as good as the last of these you nominated, but still nothing wrong with it that warrants deletion. &mdash;Xezbeth 11:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. See Category:Lists of phrases for lots of other pages with dictionary-like content. Also if kept, the article should probably be renamed to be consistent with other articles in Category:Profanity by language, and also developed to include more etymology, history, and usage information. --Voidvector 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Arent those the things you usually find in a dictionary? Corpx 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find a dictionary with most of the current Mandarin slang article content (which is largely definitions), i would be more inclined to say delete. The matter of the fact is vulgar elements of a language is rarely documented, and scarcely studied. --Voidvector 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:LOSE argues that losing the information shouldnt be a concern with AFDs. I also dont think wikipedia is the place to study these because it consitutes to original research Corpx 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are attempting a straw man by saying my position is a "losing info" position or "wiki as research platform" position. What I am saying the article is working in progress aiming to become similar to Latin profanity. --Voidvector 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt mean to twist your words, so apoligies if I interpreted it the wrong way. I also dont "like" the Latin profanity article for several reasons.  It is an attempt to categorize words from a language.   We dont want an article on every group of words from Latin - Latin metaphors Corpx 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My original position was "move to Wiktionary", as you can probably see in the edit history, but I changed to keep after seeing Latin profanity, I think it is well written. It is something worth striving, although I am not sure if there are sufficient resource on the vulgar elements of Chinese. --Voidvector 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, strongly, perhaps with a renaming. We have fairly good pages, in various formats, about Finnish profanity, Latin profanity, Spanish profanity, Mat (language), and this could easily become a good companion to them. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says the existance of other articles should not be a reason to keep this one. Corpx 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay, and (in this context) quite strongly contested. There is nothing wrong with arguing from analogy, citing examples of articles we already have.  FWIW, argumentative rebuttals to "keep" opinions are once more getting seriously out of hand, and do very little to establish consensus. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me also state that I dont like those articles either. I think they're all in violation of WP:NEO, because they "attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest —without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" and "If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. " These pages cite examples of use, but per WP:NEO that's not enough Corpx 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * weak delete - much better sourced and more descriptive slang lists have been deleted on the grounds of wikipedia not being a dictionary, why is this one any different? 81.152.196.78 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThere are several other language-specific slang or profanity articles that are useful and encyclopedic; there is no precedent for this type of subject being unfit for inclusion. the scope of the subject matter in no way prevents reforming this into a good stub, and it is definitely too large to just merge into the main mandarin article. VanTucky  (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Main mandrarin article should not have a section on slang/neologism per WP:NEO Corpx 00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - While Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Mandarin slang is an encyclopedic topic.  Cool Blue  talk to me 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I note that many similar articles exist for other languages, some of which are less important than Mandarin (for example, Singapore sexual slang terminology), and such pages have passed AfDs before. However, I feel the precedent here is wrong: I don't think Wikipedia's purpose should be to teach people how to swear in foreign languages. So I vote for deletion, while recognising that the page will probably be kept. Terraxos 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I don't perceive this page so much as a "how to swear" manual, although I can see how it would potentially used as such. My interest in this article is that it explains some of the cultural background and taboos behind what is considered vulgar, and that is valuable.  The cultural differences being highlighted here are informative and interesting.  Granted, the page could be much improved, but it's certainly not too far gone yet.  124.188.192.98 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic of Mandarin slang is a notable encyclopedic topic, a reliable source or two other than the ones listed in the article can certainly be found, and this article is more than just a list of dictionary definitions, with the potential to be much more. DHowell 04:04, 11 July 2007 (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.