Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogy of sinitic scripts

: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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

=[[Genealogy of sinitic scripts]]=

:{{la|Genealogy of sinitic scripts}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Genealogy of sinitic scripts}})

This article is original research based on a hotch-potch of unreliable sources. A genealogy of a script group is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia as it presumes that the genetic relationship between scripts is fixed and known, and is accepted by most or all linguists. In fact genetic relationships between scripts are often very controversial, and there may be many different competing theories. An article like this cannot accomodate all theories, and is inherently biased to one particular theory. BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Provided that the information can be verifiably related to reliable sources, the genealogy of a notable family of scripts is encyclopedic information and as such worthy of an article.  --Lambiam 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

:I find myself in agreement with Lambiam. While the article in its current (frankly mind-numbing) form does not allow for alternate and contested theories, there is no reason why those theories cannot be included in a prose-form article with the same information. I don't think it's original research to say that Katakana is descended from Manyōgana, or any but some of the most ancient claims in this article. My vote is for Retain Vanisaac (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep & Rewrite Or keep and strip to the bare bones. I agree with the heart of the AfD, but it is an encyclopedic subject. The problem is not the article but the content. If no one feels up to rewriting to be an accurate representation of our current knowledge, then the next best thing is to strip this to a stub and hope someone will. Colincbn (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've seen more than one flow chart, diagram, or outline serve as the main focus of an article. The Genealogy in its current form may not be the best, but if the information is reliably referenced, and the genealogy represents the most accepted linguistic theories, then I say keep. But a flow chart might illustrate the relationships better. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

:I totally agree a flowchart would be better. But the information is not referenced and does not seem accurate. As it is I think the current article needs major work, but rather than deleting bringing it to a stub for future expansion seems best to me. Colincbn (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

::I would concur with that. I'm surprised that the primary contributor hasn't weighed in. I decided to notify User:Kuceez in case he didn't know. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

:::I agree with Lambiam. But I think by changing the form (flow chart), the article will be less biased and will better "accomodate all theories," but im not good with editing. I've tried to reference all theories if I could find them (the last 3 are good sources), though its hard for the more obscure systems. Thanks Boneyard90 for the notification. kUCEEZ 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

:Rename and rewrite (same as the parallel Proto-Sinaitic article) The idea of a "genealogy" is central to the problems here, with the focus on a uniform tree representation forcing an over-simplification of the relationships. A topic "Scripts derived from Chinese" could be developed into an encyclopedic article, which might contains diagrams or trees as supporting illustrations but not as the core subject. Kanguole 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  • If we keep this we need to find some sources. Its not clear from the above that significant reliable sources exist. Relisted to focus discussion on that point. Spartaz Humbug! 04:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • :Any notable historic script has been studied extensively by scholars and published on, including information or theories about genetic relationships to other scripts. There can be no doubt that significant sources exist, which may or may not agree with each other and with the information as currently presented in the article. For a start, there is: {{cite book |title=The Historical Evolution of Chinese Languages and Scripts |author=Zhou Youguang |publisher=Foreign Language Publications |year=2003 |isbn=0-87415-349-2}}  --Lambiam 15:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep (the article but not the diagram) - if its going to stay in its current form then its got no place here because such a chart cannot accurately represent speculative relationships. That is to say that many of these genetic relationship are well studied and a solid consensus has emerged. in those cases showing a diagram is fine but many of these writing systems are not entirely understood in terms of their relationships, and speculation about how exactly they are related to other scripts is controversial or just weak speculation generally, representing such ideas in a diagram would be equivalent to stating opinion as fact. This is a notable topic with a wealth of reliable sources. Some kind of tree diagram might be okay, but it would have to accurately represent what is and what isn't known and what is controversial without taking sides and compiling such a tree is probably WP:OR. I'd say the current content is in fact WP:OR, but I really want to know what the editor who put it there has to say about it. In general there is no reason to think that well cited and carefully written prose can't tackle this notable subject in an interesting and encyclopedic way. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete I see we already have Chinese family of scripts. These are two articles on the same topic, but at least that one could be developed into a discussion of the scripts and their relationships, without being centred on an over-simplified hierarchy. The only thing here is a tree sourced to websites. Better to scrap it and build the article on the family of scripts (which might contains diagrams or trees as supporting illustrations, if well sourced). Kanguole 19:42, 7 July 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.