Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hundred-knot Bamboo Tree

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred-knot Bamboo Tree[edit]

The Hundred-knot Bamboo Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an unnotable fairy tale; the article doesn't even imply why it is notable, only that it exists. A lot of things exist, but that doesn't make them notable. Tavix (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep There are lots of results indicating this is a well established and well known story. The article needs to be expanded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can also be merged after it's kept. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I initially thought the creator of the article made this story, but since it's also listed in this book as a traditional Vietnamese fairy tale, I no longer believe that. That doesn't change the fact that the article states the obvious. Anyone searching for information about this would already know it to be a fairy tale (or at least a piece of fiction). When I've reached the 25th result of my Google search, I'm on my last one and none of the references actually mention any details about the story - I just find copies of the tale. Unless it is made to be verifiable, there's no chance of expansion and significant encyclopedic content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Has been around since late October with no changes. 1 external link and 1 sentence. And that one sentence is partly just the title qualified with "is a Vietnamese fairy tale" I speedied according to A3-No Content. --Pstanton 09:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
    • Declined speedy deletion. Please review A3, this article does not meet it. SoWhy 11:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong KeepThis is a notable aspect of Vietnamese cultural heritage. Why would you want to destroy such a contribution? it has a citation, there are likely others out there also. Let's rate this article as stub class and list it with some projects and see where it goes.Critical Chris (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems reasonably obvious that the reasons are, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that the article is unverifiable from any sources at all, with all efforts to find sources having currently failed (since only bare repetitions of the story have been found so far), and that any literary, critical, historical, or other analysis of it for an encyclopaedic treatment would be an original one. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the fable/legend/parable is also mentioned here Bamboo#Myths and legends  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've not heard of the fairy tale myself, but WP:BIAS warns against unconscious geographic and cultural bias.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I don't like deleting articles about folk/fairy tales, but this one seems to have no notability beyond the bare fact that it exists. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have doubts as to whether this story is notable or not, but I am not in the place to judge as Vietemese culture is generally hard for westerners to access. I found three tellings of this story online, here, here, and a third which is blacklisted, and each of the three is slightly different. This would be an indication that the story isn't a hoax and really exists. As to the question of notability, I doubt any of us can answer that with certainty without consulting someone who's knowledgable about Vietnimese culture. When in doubt, we shouldn't delete, especially since the article isn't controversial in any way so I think we should keep it and stick some tags on it for now. Someone who knows something about Vietnemese culture should have a look at this. Themfromspace (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could determine notability easily, without personal knowledge. All that needs to be shown is that multiple independent published works (in any language) exist documenting this subject in depth. We've all found the re-tellings. (I did, too.) No-one has yet actually found even a single secondary source that can be used to build an encyclopaedia article. We cannot perform our own original analysis of the story. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, but as I cannot read Vietnamese I can't go to google.com.vn and search for this story in the place where secondary sources would most likely be written. Themfromspace (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the Grimm tales are "not notable" if one wished to make that claim. Notability of fairy tales or parables is, IMHO, only dependent on them being widely known in their original place of origin. Thus this is sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a standard fairy tale in the Vietnamese repertoire of fairy tales. Plenty of secondary sources mention this story. See this Google Book search. DHN (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the limited citation it has (a book that includes the tale) I believe it exists. As for significant coverage, most sources would be in Vietnamese; we need a user who knows Vietnamese to adequately cover this. Given that the article has satisfied the bare minimum requirement of WP:V with the anthology, I'm inclined to eventualism. Estemi (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DHN YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if there are sources that its a part of the national tradition, as there seem to be. This is why such articles cannot be speedied. DGG (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:55, 20 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hundred-knot_Bamboo_Tree&oldid=1088207036"