Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teng (mythology)


 * 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The result was Speedy keep  - nomination withdrawn, no delete votes. Non-admin closure. Snotty Wong  communicate 04:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Teng (mythology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is essentially a violation of WP:NOTDIC. I can't find anything which differentiates a Teng from a Feilong, and the mythological area is covered well enough in that article and Chinese dragon. All that remains is etymology and usage. Good content, but not suitable for Wikipedia. Claritas § 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As the article explains, this creature is a flying serpent which, lacking legs, is somewhat different from other types of dragon. The Chinese distinguish these types in their poetry and philosophy, as this erudite article explains.  Deleting this would be an act of barbarism contrary to our editing policy.  Note also that User:Wolfkeeper has recently been banned for an excessively hardline view of the WP:DICDEF policy.  The community has explicitly relaxed this policy as we are tolerant of lexical articles when they are done well, as this one is.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting: "An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns".. This article is more concerned with usage, etymology etc. than the dragon itself. Claritas § 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is sufficient that the article goes into the semantics of the matter, explaining the differences. That it illustrates the matter with classical allusions is a good thing, not bad. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's actually not a good thing, because it means the article is about the word, and not the dragon. Claritas § 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's about the particular type of dragon. Just as we have have multiple articles about the different fabulous beasts in the western tradition such as dragon, wyvern, basilisk, &c., so it is reasonable to have different articles about the different varieties in the orient. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that this article is dominated by a dictionary definition and lists of usage, unlike the articles you mention. Claritas § 09:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The details of the Chinese ideogram seem appropriate, just as we might explain the reason that some dragons in European mythology may be referred to as wyrms or worms or just as we explain the meaning of tyrannosaurus rex. Chinese culture, language and writing is so unlike English that it is good to explain matters in such detail lest readers make false assumptions or get confused. The essential point is that we are describing the habits and other details of this particular mythological creature here, not just the terminology and word-forms used to refer to it.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll just list all the facts I know about the dragon having read the article: Every other fact in the article is essentially etymology/usage/historical definitions etc. Claritas § 10:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) . It flies.
 * 2) . It doesn't have legs.
 * 3) . It is associated with the clouds and the weather.
 * 4) . It is pretty similar to what's called a feilong.


 * Keep The Teng (mythology) article, which (full disclosure) I started, has three sections: 1 Names, 2 Classical usages, and 3 Mythology. The WP:NOTDIC criticism could apply to the first but overlooks the second and third. Many articles about Chinese topics include linguistic information for the benefit of English WP readers who are not Sinophones. The "covered well enough" criticism is uncorroborated. Feilong (mythology) mentions teng once in a textual co-occurrence and Chinese dragon mentions it once in a list of non-long dragons. Teng(she) and feilong are flying dragons but not synonyms. This article is about a mythological creature and not merely a Chinese word. If you feel the first section is excessively lexicographic, please either revise it or suggest suitable changes on the Talk page. Keahapana (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between a "teng" and a "feilong" though ? There's absolutely no evidence given that they are anything other than synonyms. Claritas § 20:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me the difference from a Dendrorhynchoides and a Anurognathus in plain English. Aren't they both just flying lizards? Wait, flying lizard describes Teng and Feilong as well... Sorry, but explaining in English, where the words exact words needed to distinguish them may not exist due to cultural differences is a lot to ask for. — Code  Hydro  03:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Request closure. Claritas § 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no definitive difference because both are imaginary creatures, sources variously describe the absence/presence of feet and wings . The Beishi history (1.2), which contrasts feilong and tongshe as names for different marching formations, provides clear evidence of non-synonymy. Keahapana (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Though the nominator may not see it so, etymology is history, especially in the Chinese language. Chinese words have many numerous connotations in their culture and layers of meaning which are not as obvious in translation into another culture. Granted the article needs some work, but it is fixable as there is a lot more that can be done with this article, such as by drawing in details from the thousands of texts and stories in which Teng have appeared. Moreover, the fact the Wikipedia is banned in mainland China due to censorship, the number of editors capable of tapping into the rich history of China who are on Wikipedia are very very few in comparison to the amount of information they must cover. Nonetheless, there is no doubt in my mind that there is far more richness available, as this myth is thousands of years old, making the unicorn look young. — Code Hydro  03:00, 5 September 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.