Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Chinese literature

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 redirect to Chinese literature. Opinions are divided between merge and delete. This redirect is a compromise in that it allows editors to figure out in the course of individual edits and discussions which, if any, content is worth merging. Sandstein 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Chinese literature[edit]

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

This is poorly written and a hodgepodge of extant information from other articles. It reads more like a middle school report than an encyclopedia article. A "B" one at that. It's not even internally-consistent as it refers to Classic period as well as the 14th century, neither of which are at all "ancient" - a phrase which probably is cribbed from the derogatory Orientalist phrase "Ancient Chinese Secret/Proverb". JesseRafe (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Chinese literature. Based on the current content it makes more sense as a section of a more general article. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (vote updated to Redirect; I see no content worth saving Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Merge into Chinese literature. The article scope is ill-defined and questionable. Most academic sources consider "ancient China" to be pre-Qin dynasty or at latest the Han dynasty; the Four Great Classical Novels, which take up half of the article as currently written, are usually considered late imperial, not ancient. -Zanhe (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Power~enwiki and Zanhe. Obviously notable aspect of a greater field. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's nothing here that isn't covered better and more sensibly at Chinese literature and articles that branch off from there. This is especially true given the meaninglessness of this article's use of the word "ancient". Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing worth saving here. This reads like a student essay from a stealth WEF class. I question why KGirlTrucker81 thought it appropriate to accept this draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 甲骨文 (earlier than 11th century BCE) and 紅樓夢 (late 1700s CE) have no business being periodised together. While the Chinese word we translate as ancient (古) has considerably broader scope than the English word ancient, this article reads like an incorrect, poorly-paraphrased summary of Chinese literature. None of the references are the caliber of source I'd expect for a treatment of this topic (Shen Yun performing arts?), categorising genres of writing into "prose" and "poetry" is oversimplification to the point of being wrong, and each one of the descriptions of the five main types of Classical Chinese poetry contains at least one factual error. I'm sorry but nothing in this article is worth merging. Agree it should not have been accepted at AfC. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator, it's an embarrassment for Wikipedia that this article is still up. For those advocating merge please suggest an article that this content would go on where this information isn't already, albeit only written much more cogently and well-sourced. It's entirely superfluous and to be frank, quite a stain given its seeming prominence and grandiose scope. Just delete the whole thing and leave a redirect as suggested above. JesseRafe (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. The topic is almost certainly notable, but this article is so beyond fixing that it would be easier to create it anew. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2017 (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.