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 delete. The consensus is that this would be more suitable for the Chinese Wikipedia. If sufficient reliable sourcing can be found, then this can be recreated at a future date, or information added to Apus (constellation) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apus (Traditional Chinese star name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

A fork of Apus (constellation), i.e. content that should be there or at a Chinese version of the page JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the English version of Wikipedia. Information on the names of subjects in other languages (even a language as important as Chinese) should, at most, be mentioned in the existing article on the topic. Borock (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the list of stars in Apus list article or rename to list of stars in Yìquè (as all stars currently listed are in the Chinese constellation). There certainly could be list articles for Chinese constellations, since they are not the same as the Western ones. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I wasn't aware that Chinese constellations were different. It would certainly be a notable area for WP to cover. Borock (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is indeed a family of articles Category:Chinese constellations, but the "Southern Asterisms" are not really traditional Chinese constellations (being derived from Western star maps) and currently have no articles of their own. In any case, this article does not fit into that framework. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Half the table simply repeats information which is more clearly given at Chinese constellations, while the (unreferenced) information on Chinese names for specific stars really belongs in the Chinese Wikipedia (if it is not, as I suspect it is, WP:OR). -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were referenced, I don't see why such information would not exist on English Wikipedia, in the article for the Chinese constellation (as opposed to any Western constellation). Of course, someone should build an article on the Chinese constellation in question. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article author has recently created a large number of articles in the same style, all unsourced, all conflicting with the existing article structure, and all of dubious relevance to the English Wikipedia. I have PRODed some of them, but really this AfD should be considered a test case for the whole family; which means editors should think through keep/delete arguments with even more care than usual. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it wouldn't be relevant to English Wikipedia, though the structure chosen by the author is questionable (It really should be a list of stars in Chinese constellation X, or exist in the article about Chinese constellation X). 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my comment, for "Southern Asterisms", where the Chinese constellation is based on the Western one, the Chinese name for a star belongs, in my opinion, in the Chinese Wikipedia. For the traditional Chinese constellations, like Horn (Chinese constellation), the Chinese star names probably belong in the Wikipedia article on the Chinese constellation. To put it another way, a simple mapping of international standard names to Chinese names is an issue for Chinese Wikipedia, but a detailed explanation of how traditional Chinese constellations are defined belongs in both Chinese and English Wikipedias, because it presents a different astronomical system, not just a language-specific issue. In the same way, Chinese names for, say, fish, are of no particular interest in English Wikipedia, but if there is a traditional Chinese taxonomy for fish that differs from the standard scientific one, that would be worth having articles about. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject is unfamiliar to me, but if Apus is the commonly accepted contemporary name for the constellation, information about alternative names for the constellation belong at the Apus article. Except if the alternative name is notable enough for a stand alone article, but there is no indication that this is the case for this article. --PinkBull 16:42, 3 August 2010 (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.