Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Old Jade

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 snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Old Jade

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

I believe this article may be a hoax or meant as a product placement. I did a search for the term and found nothing in Google News, Books, or Scholar about it. Furthermore, a Google Web search only found duplicates of the Wikipedia article or Ebay listings for Ancient Old Jade products. Also, the article was created by User:Orionwebmuseum, which further makes me believe this is some sort of advertisement. Similar accounts, likely to be sockpuppets, have also edited the article, with names of User:Orionandhsu and User:OrionHsu. Nothing in the article seems verifiable as Ancient Old Jade being an actual term used for anything beyond just general descriptive words, often used to sell things. Silver seren^C 07:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Old Jade is a jade terminology of jade category to be distinguished from Modern Jade. This jade terminology is well-known by jade dealers and collectors. It's impossible to be a hoax. In Chinese they say 高古玉 (spelling as: Gao Gu Yu) or just 古玉 (spelling as: Gu Yu) as Ancient Old Jade in English. --Orionandhsu (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. 高 (Gao) doesn't mean ancient, it means "high", or "elevated", and 高古玉 (Gao Gu Yu) does not translate as "ancient old jade" in English. "Ancient old jade" does not exist as a specific term for jade, and is invented by the creator of the page. The terminology as described in the page is wrong in any case, 古玉 (Gu Yu) refers to old jade, 高古玉 (Gao Gu Yu) refers to very ancient jade, pre-Tang Dynasty at least, and more often pre-Qin Dynasty (221 to 207 BC, not Qing dynasty (1644-1911 AD) as stated in the article). Hzh (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quote

Ancient Old Jade is a jade terminology of jade category to be distinguished from Modern Jade. This jade terminology is well-known by jade dealers and collectors. In Chinese they say 高古玉 (spelling as: Gao Gu Yu) or just 古玉 (spelling as: Gu Yu) as Ancient Old Jade in English.

Basic Concepts of Authenticity Examinations against Fakes of Ancient Old Jades

(1) Scratch Test: Jades are firm enough to resist from Scratch Test by human finger nails.

(2) Semi-Translucence Test: Jades are semi-translucent under the light of portable flashlight.

(3) Sound Test: The sound of a jade knocked slightly on another jade is just like that from a musical instrument and very clear. It’s not such heavy as those sounds knocked by stones or plastic goods.

(4) Soakage Color Test: The soakage color formed in the earth for thousands of years are natural. People are used to put Ancient Old Jades in pure clear warm water for at least one day and one night to see if the soakage color is still remained the same as usual before to judge if it’s dyed manually. From long-term basis, the manually dyed Fakes will fade their false soakage colors into one another gradually.

(5) Age Test: The Ancient Old Jades must have the appearance and totems of Imperial Royal His Majesty Dignity of an Emperor or a King. This is quite different from the modern jade carved work of art designed just for an Art purpose only.

(6) Carvings of Holes Test: The holes of Ancient Old Jades were not straight penetrated from one side. They were penetrated from two sides and formed a curve path gap between two holes from each side.

(7) Carvings of Lines Test: The inclined feminine lines of Ancient Old Jades were not carved by machine tools that make lines straight forward with two sides of line wall straight upward vertically. They were carved one side of line wall straight upward vertically, while another side of line wall plane inclined by ancient bronze jade carving wheels.

(8) Totems test: The Ancient Old Jade must have Jade Carving Totems used in that dynasty to be presented to the Imperial Royal His Majesty Dignity of an Emperor or a King.

(9) Smooth Carvings Test: The Ancient Old Jades were carved by imperial skillful hand-made jade carving masters and must be carved simply, clearly and smoothly upon specially selected solid fine jades. This kind of carving is not existed in modern world by machine tools and art carving artists or sculptors.

(10) Weight (Density) Test: A true experienced jade collector or dealer can easily tell the difference between a Jade and other stones by just holding a Jade in hand to feel its heavy weight of high density.

(11) Surface Test: The surface of a jade is very smooth and quite different from other stones. A true experienced jade collector or dealer can easily tell the difference between a Jade and other stones by just touching the surface of a jade carved work of art gently with his fingers.

(12) Color Test: A true experienced jade collector or dealer can easily tell the difference between a Jade and other stones by just examining its natural beautiful color appeared in front of human eyes.

unquote

The above contents have been added in the article of Ancient Old Jade to avoid unnecessary mistakes and misunderstandings of readers outside of jade world. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is largey irrelevant to whether the items in the page are authentic or not, since we cannot touch or feel the items, or check the sounds the object makes, or to see it through a strong light source. However there are plenty of pictures of ancient jade objects in the web, and none of the look like some of what's shown in the page, like these. The color and and look of the stone is very different, moreover you don't see jade with red outlines as seen in the servant girl with lamp figure, that is clearly an attempt to fake the brownish tint you might see in some ancient pieces. Further, the quality of the carvings in many of the items in the page is poor, real ancient items are better carved than those. Hzh (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page is used for advertising for objects that may then be auctioned off by the editor and uploader of the images. For example the piece at this site is the same piece is used to illustrate the article here (the last one in the section). The objects are also likely to be fakes, for example the figure of a servant girl holding a lamp is a copy of a bronze figure discovered in a tomb - here, and the warrior figure is copied from figures of the Terracotta Army (such figures are never found to be made of jade in ancient China). Hzh (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If File:100 3846GreenBiJadeCarvedWarriorsSwordWarHorseQinDynastyChinaSealedPreservedHistoricTimeCapsuleWarriorArmorView.JPG was unearthed in the early 21st century as claimed, presumably not in Taiwan, getting it to Mr Hsu's shop would have violated export controls. A simpler theory is that it's a recent creation. Kanguole 15:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If 古玉 (Gu Yu) refers to old jade, and 高古玉(Gao Gu Yu) refers to very ancient jade, then very Ancient Old Jade should be used to name them all together in English. Please do not use ancient Words Crime Prison to sentence other's innocent words as guilty in modern world. Orionandhsu (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gao Gu Yu" can be seen as a sub-category of "Gu Yu", and "Gao" is just there to emphasis the antiquity and specialness of the pieces. So either "old jade" or "ancient jade", but there is no "ancient old jade" category. To merge the two words together is largely nonsensical. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the lack of hits on Google Scholar and Google Books pretty much dooms this one. If that were a legitimate term for a category of jade, one would expect someone to use it - except Orionandhsu, that is. Probably someone able to read Chinese would be necessary to confirm if the references support what they are cited for, but even if they do, much of the article remains unsourced and highly dubious. The images are duplicates of those on this website which claims that Orion Hsu himself is the artist. ~~He also seems to have spammed the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias.~~ Huon (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really absurd to accuse a person who doesn't even know the Russian and Ukrainian languages of having spammed the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. It seems Orion Hsu is a well-known public name for every one in this world to use this name as an artist everywhere in the web-sites, and even in Russia and Ukraine! Wow! This name is so famously registered in modern world. Orionandhsu (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of your images on those Wikipedias and had assumed you added it; that doesn't seem to be the case. Sorry, I should have checked more carefully. My other points still stand. Huon (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an article written on a subject of Ancient Old Jade and has nothing to do with Possible Fraud guessed by somebody. If someone has different opinions about the contents of this article, he should then join to edit the contents to improve this subject. It's really not good to delete the whole subject of Ancient Old Jade for interfering the readers' rights to understand this subject. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the content would require a reliable secondary source mentioning the subject in the first place. If it were a legitimate topic, surely some textbook on ancient Chinese art would mention the term "ancient old jade" - that does not seem to be the case. Huon (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – apparently part of an extensive Internet advertising campaign for pieces on sale at the author's "web museum". Kanguole 15:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources; just an advertisement for a now-blocked advert-only account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator appears to have made an ironclad case for this being an attempt at semi-hoaxish advertising instead of it being an actual encyclopedic article. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spamming/hoax page created by blocked User:Orionwebmuseum, who's been blocked for spamming. User:Orionandhsu appears to be a sock puppet of User:Orionwebmuseum. -Zanhe (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2012 (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.