Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogy of sinitic scripts

Genealogy of sinitic scripts

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

This article is original research based on a hotch-potch of unreliable sources. A genealogy of a script group is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia as it presumes that the genetic relationship between scripts is fixed and known, and is accepted by most or all linguists. In fact genetic relationships between scripts are often very controversial, and there may be many different competing theories. An article like this cannot accomodate all theories, and is inherently biased to one particular theory. BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Provided that the information can be verifiably related to reliable sources, the genealogy of a notable family of scripts is encyclopedic information and as such worthy of an article. --Lambiam 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in agreement with Lambiam. While the article in its current (frankly mind-numbing) form does not allow for alternate and contested theories, there is no reason why those theories cannot be included in a prose-form article with the same information. I don't think it's original research to say that Katakana is descended from Manyōgana, or any but some of the most ancient claims in this article. My vote is for Retain Vanisaac (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rewrite Or keep and strip to the bare bones. I agree with the heart of the AfD, but it is an encyclopedic subject. The problem is not the article but the content. If no one feels up to rewriting to be an accurate representation of our current knowledge, then the next best thing is to strip this to a stub and hope someone will. Colincbn (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen more than one flow chart, diagram, or outline serve as the main focus of an article. The Genealogy in its current form may not be the best, but if the information is reliably referenced, and the genealogy represents the most accepted linguistic theories, then I say keep. But a flow chart might illustrate the relationships better. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree a flowchart would be better. But the information is not referenced and does not seem accurate. As it is I think the current article needs major work, but rather than deleting bringing it to a stub for future expansion seems best to me. Colincbn (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with that. I'm surprised that the primary contributor hasn't weighed in. I decided to notify User:Kuceez in case he didn't know. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lambiam. But I think by changing the form (flow chart), the article will be less biased and will better "accomodate all theories," but im not good with editing. I've tried to reference all theories if I could find them (the last 3 are good sources), though its hard for the more obscure systems. Thanks Boneyard90 for the notification. kUCEEZ 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]