Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han-Nom

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 Speedy closed; redirect restored and protected. Angr (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Han-Nom

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

It has been claimed that consolidating "Han" (Literary Chinese) and "Nom" (Vietnamese written in Chinese characters) together in a single term, subject, or article is WP:OR. See this discussion. As this issue has been the subject of extensive edit warring, I bring the matter here. MergerDude (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MergerDude, welcome to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place with this AfD? This re-created article (at the time anyone clicks it will probably be a redirect) has already been merged following a lengthy 2 month discussion with at the time 6-1 in favour. the creator already raised a query at WT:AFD and was advised against using the AfD process. Without question both Chinese language in Vietnam (Hán) and Vietnamese lanuage in demotic script (Nôm) are notable, which is why we already have two very large articles, one for each language. The OR is in equating the two. I have seen Chinese books claiming that the 6-8 demotic poetry is "more Chinese than Vietnamese" - but I don't think that's a view shared by mainstream Chinese scholarship, let alone Vietnamese or Western. There may be a case at a future date for a detailed article on Chinese-Vietnamese parallel texts (i.e. Chinese medicine books with demotic Vietnamese translation) but at present neither vi.wp nor zh.wp have such an article, and I can only think of 2 sources in English even touching on the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Han, and Nom articles, where is also Chu-Nom, which is greatly duplicative of this content. speedy close as delete/merge/redirect, as there is already a strong consensus this should be merged. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close redirect and protect Agathoclea (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to merged article – The article was merged to Chữ nôm following this discussion in which all but the article author were in favour of such a merge. He has since repeatedly restored the article, claiming it was blanked. It needs to be returned to a redirect; it cannot be deleted because its history provides attribution for the text merged into Chữ nôm as required by Wikipedia's licence (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Kanguole 08:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as merge. Already consensus for the merge. All the material fits in Literary Chinese or History of writing in Vietnam or Nom. Merge rather than delete, keep page history per Kanguole. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (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.