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 keep. A move away from "Chinese" can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homophonic puns in Chinese[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads as pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it's possible that a decent article could be created here eventually, but none of the content is suitable as it stands. Indeed, 'Chinese' is not a language; Cantonese and Mandarin (amongst others) are. →ROUX ₪ 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the decision to move this too: list of China-related deletion discussions The content should be closely reviewed by those with experience in the usage of such puns within the language and culture of the Chinese to avoid possible embarrassments for the Wiki... --User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the point, primarily in the advertisement section which is clearly inappropriate and which I've just removed. It is not a synthesis of information from other articles, most of the target content is currently non-existent on wikipedia, but many of the examples in the article are because of the ease with which they can be found. Even so, how are articles like "List of Argentinians/Danes..." anything more than synthesizing information from other articles? Furthermore, there is nothing about it which advances a position, since the information can be immediately inferred from the material itself to any individual competent in the language. Stating that "pear" and "pair" are pronounced the same is as original as 2+2=4, and maybe an individual came to the conclusion independently, but the conclusion itself is a necessary result of systemic constraints.
I don't see how mentioning how "'Chinese' is not a language" is in any way appropriate. The article clearly outlines the scope as intending to encompass both Standard Mandarin and other Sinitic varieties and in no place claims that Chinese is a language as "Chinese" can be an all-encompassing term. Using "in Chinese" in the title is no different than the articles The Internationale in Chinese or Chinese exclamative particles which despite superficial phonetic differences clearly point to something universal among them. Every variety of Chinese has these particles, and anyone could learn how to sing the Internationale in their dialect and indeed before a standard form was chosen many people likely did. All Chinese varieties are highly analytic and homophones abound even in the more phonetically rich Middle Chinese pronunciations of many words whose modern reflexes generally carry on as homophones as well. Homophony and its consequences are universal linguistic features among Chinese varieties that merits an article unto itself and falls within the scope of wikipedia and meets its guidelines. Not only for humor, but it also leads to some serious confusion among its speakers. It can even focus on homophony in regional Mandarin, for example speakers who pronounce the syllables "lei" and "nei" as only "lei" or only "nei" and do not possess the distinction, which may lead to puns or confusion among these speakers or others. Or for example, there's a clothing chain called 衫国演义 "Romance of the Shirt Kingdom" which sounds like 三国演义 or the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" in many southerners' regional Mandarin. There may also be a section on Japanese names with unfortunate Mandarin pronunciations as well. These are phenomena which are painfully obvious to most Chinese and encountered on a daily basis. They form an integral part of Chinese linguistic culture. Wikipedia exists precisely to provide a medium for documenting phenomena like this which may have few other appropriate outlets. There are difficulties in proving the speakers' perceptions of puns since there are few well-known works on the matter but a similar difficulty holds true for Mandarin Chinese profanity as well English language phenomena such as Elephant jokes yet these articles appear perfectly permissible and have been there for a while.
I do not believe this article merits deletion. I acknowledge some current content issues, but its the inappropriate content which needs deletion not the article. Furthermore, this article was created with the stated purpose of being a seed for later development and was never intended to be a good article in the first place. What the article needs is more careful attention and more meaningful contributions. Given the variety of other analogous articles on wikipedia, it should in principle be permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.s.ronis (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - I strongly disagree with deleting this article. The examples given are real, although just a very small selection of common puns. The article is also informative, it should eventually be expanded. The political part should probably be toned down, since we normally avoid to use the f*** word in any language unless it is totally necessary to understand the subject, which is not the case here.
But nobody will like to be working on this article as long as it is tagged for deletion. I suggest to remove the tag in one week if the 'keeps' are still in the majority.
Also, of course, Chinese is a language, namely a written language (Chinese characters). Mandarin and Cantonese are spoken languages and their speakers use Chinese language for writing. Shenhemu (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move - article can be improved to meet standards. The topic itself is a notable one and deserves to be expanded. Homophones and near homophones are a very important part of Mandarin Chinese. I do however, find the "Chinese" in the title slightly problematic. The other chinese languages are similar in their prominence of homophony but the article seems to actually be about Mandarin and should be labeled as such. The pronunciation for other chinese languages would be different, and since homophony is about pronunciation, the article should go ahead and be titled as being about Mandarin Chinese. The specific claims of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH do not apply here since no original argument is being made. The most general ideas in the article are all either cited or are common knowledge to anyone familiar with the language. For the latter, sources can be found and added, the article is new. The specific ideas in the article are cited and the article does not attempt to form a new conclusion based on those ideas. It states other widely held ideas which connect them and cites the sources, though not all. The article can and will be improve in the near future. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.