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 merge to Hong. --jonny-mt 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong (Chinese word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is not about a specific term in Chinese or Cantonese with culture or social significance, but simply a collection of terms that translates to "Hong" in English. It is not notable and un-encyclopedic. Voidvector (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a transliterated English word that has been used extensively by the British since the colonial era. It has historical significance. Though I'll admit this article is quite undeveloped and we need more editors. Benjwong (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. If the word itself has historical significance, I'd like to know what it is; I somehow doubt that it does. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or redirect to The Hongs, maybe. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So we have articles on words like mu, bling, holy cow, hella, niangniangqiang. We even accept Abort, Retry, Fail?, a computer error message as an article. And Hong being such a historical word cannot be kept? This is nuts. Benjwong (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply All of the articles you linked are distinct concepts, not a pseudo-disambiguation page like what we have here. We already have an article on the Hongs (the type of businesses). I am not sure how you find a phonetic transliteration significant or distinct in anyway. (Also, I suggested that "niangniangqiang" be merged into Mandarin Chinese profanity.) --Voidvector (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hong, which is a proper disambiguation page. The sections "Word analysis" probably shouldn't be merged, but the others would be fine in a normal disambiguation page. Calling it a page for a "Chinese word" is inaccurate as it's not even talking about one distinct syllable (I see haang4, heung1, and tons of others lumped under here). cab (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to its proper place, Hong! This is an Anglocentric false collectivity due to accidents of transliteration. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 2 June 2008 (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.