Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese word for "crisis"

Chinese word for "crisis"

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

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

I believe the Chinese word is not notable because as a Chinese speaker, I've never heard anyone ever mention the alleged notability of the word, namely its composition from 危 and 机. So, no one in the Chinese-speaking community cares. Zh.wp does not have a separate article on the word, and the info is contained in the main article for "crisis". (zh:危机) 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination copied from WT:ATD. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning keep, but perhaps retitle to indicate the status of the popular account as basically an urban legend. BD2412 T 21:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This content is essentially a summary of a series of blog posts by Victor Mair and Ben Zimmer. (Although the article cites Pinyin Info, Mair and Zimmer also blog together at Language Log.) They are quite interesting blog posts, and the urban legend they relate to is a hardy perennial, but I'm not entirely sure they alone are sufficient to establish notability. If this stays, I would like to see some independent sourcing. I imagine, though, that such sourcing probably exists. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources listed in the article aren't overwhelming but enough to show notability – Language Log especially is a solid reliable self-published source. Since the article is about a business-speak trope based on English speakers' misunderstanding of the Chinese word, it's not surprising that it isn't noteworthy amongst fluent Chinese speakers (or zhwiki). – Joe (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Refer WP:ATA. Opencooper (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not important whether Chinese native speakers know this; as the article states it refers to its usage outside of China. It has been used as a phrase in Norway at least since 1968 as far as I can document. In a 1975 book Johan Galtung claimed this meaning and even rendered the Chinese letters. Geschichte (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: The nominator's argument is that this phrase is not relevant for Chinese speakers. The article is actually about how English speakers have turned a misunderstanding into a cliche. The sources are adequate here for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a significant and popular WP page, with some 141,426 pageviews in 2020. None of the established English Wikipedia criteria for deleting an article include the idiolectal opinions of bilingual Sinophones. Keahapana (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as no valid reason for deletion is given. We have lots of articles in English Wikipedia that are not on their native language's Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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.