Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplifications to written Chinese in Hong Kong


 * 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. The article is unsourced and even an editor proposing to keep it writes "It's a piece of folk wisdom for which unreliable sources exist everywhere, but reliable sources almost nowhere"; the only source they propose is a self-published one. Per WP:V and notably WP:BURDEN, therefore, policy requires the article's deletion until reliable sources are found.  Sandstein  06:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Simplifications to written Chinese in Hong Kong

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is entirely unsourced and appear to be original research. Also I'm not sure the topic really is notable. The "simplifications" are equivalent to an English waiter writing "T" instead of "tea" or "C" instead of "coffee". I don't think this trivia warrants an article. Laurent (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the information somewhere else? If so, I agree, but if not, it seems to me a waste of knowledge to lose these characters. Most of them are archaic elsewhere, and if someone was studying Hong Kong, or even visiting, it would be very helpful to know these things. At the very least, information from this article should be added to the pages on the characters used that already exist.Jln Dlphk (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion in the wikipedia, however. There are many things that would be useful, but are not encyclopedic or notable.  65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs further editing as well as added references, however the article is interesting and is of widespread public interest in my opinion worthy of inclusion.--Carol1946 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article indeed needs references, however it has been there for 5 years and never had a single source, and I can't find any myself. The fact that it is wp:interesting or wp:useful are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. In fact, I think the article is not interesting or useful because it's unsourced, so there's no way to know how often, by whom, or in which context these simplified characters are used. Laurent (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User blocked. Nakon  06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, from personal experience (yes, I know that's not a source but it perhaps adds perspective) I can confirm that HK people shorthand Chinese characters in the ways the article lays out. In fact, there's a few common ones missing. I think if anything needs tweaking it's the title. I'll try and find some sources, give me a moment... Akerbeltz (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiLaurent, I would take such a characterisation (waiter writing "T" instead of "tea" and "C" instead of "coffee") to be extreme. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I understood from the article. Those are apparently simplifications used by waiters - the only difference is that in Hong Kong they use Chinese characters instead of the alphabet. Laurent (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Oppose and improve: Deleting because of OR is tantamount to throwing the baby out of the bathtub, or whatever the phrase is. Plus I don't see how this article could possibly be merged into any other easily. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My main point is still that the article is completely unsourced, and apparently nobody is able to find any source. Assuming we cannot find any reference, what do you suggest we should do? And, personally, I see no point in improving the article if it's just to add more OR to it. Laurent (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment, I find that I cannot vote to keep or delete. It is valuable and notable information, but it is unsourced (OR).  Could someone contact an authority in Hong Kong for clarification on the simplification policy in Hong Kong? —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  06:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are not official simplifications so we won't find anything on Hong Kong's official websites. Laurent (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment, leaning towards keep - I agree with the comment above. It's a piece of folk wisdom for which unreliable sources exist everywhere, but reliable sources almost nowhere. However there is an article online where an academic at the Chinese University of Hong Kong wrote about the subject: . This article will hopefully be able to source some information in the article and save it from imminent deletion. --Deryck C. 13:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this page from a teacher's personal website establishes notability. So far, it seems that all the arguments for "keep" amount to WP:ILIKEIT or it's WP:INTERESTING, but if we can't find anything more than a trivial mention in a personal homepage, perhaps we should admit that the subject is just not notable. Laurent (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - These are not government approved. But then neither is LOL and that exist as an article. Benjwong (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete based on my view of the above discussions. If anyone feels they wish to preserve the information, they are welcome to take it before deletion of the article. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  19:47, 20 January 2011 (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.