Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinaman (porcelain)

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 keep. The WP:DICDEF concern has been addressed. In any case, there's no chance of deletion now — at most merge and/or redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinaman (porcelain)

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

This is a definition and should be in the Wiki Dictionary Kanuk (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 19. Snotbot t • c » 01:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nominator wants to put this in Wiktionary then he may do so, but this is not a reason to delete the stub here. The English trade in chinaware was quite extensive and there is much more to say about it. Here's a couple of books, for example: China Trade Porcelain and The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England. The topic is therefore notable and our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is not about the English trade in Chinese ceramics (Chinese export porcelain) but the person who dealt with the trade. Funny ^Pika! 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the stub is not about the trade. It is plainly and simply a definition of an occupation. It is a clear and simple definition. Any pertinent information about the occupation of a Chinaman could be put in the article noted by FunnyPika. This is not a situation to which the preserve policy applies, it is one to which the Definitions policy applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanuk (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 April 2013

This article was created in 2007, Recommended for deletion in 2010, objection by aforesaid Colonel Warden. Nothing of any consequence has been done with it since 2010, indeed since 2007. This "article" has all of the qualities of a definition. No one has seen it as an article to be expanded in 6 years. Likely because that one line says all there is to say by way of definition of a term related to a specific occupation. If this has the possibility of become an article then this is the opportunity for someone to come forward and take on the task. My proposal was to put it where it belongs. If another editor has a better idea then, that editor should go for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanuk (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 April 2013

Delete per nom. Hard to see how it could be expanded beyond a one-line definition. At best, it rates a mention in Chinese export porcelain. Even in books, it gets a single sentence: "Their [East India Company] method of sale was by auction, mainly to dealers; the porcelain dealers were called 'Chinamen'."[1] "[East India] Company records from the end of the century provide detailed information about how these auctions were arranged at the end of the century, when dealers, usually called 'India merchants' or 'China-men,' bought large lots for resale."[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If that one sentence hasn't been expanded upon in years, despite a prior AfD on the same grounds, then we can only assume that there's nothing more to say about the subject. As the nominator stated, it's a definition, not an article. The creator can make a dictionary entry (or not, it's up to them), but a single sentence is not sufficient for a standalone article of an encyclopedic nature. It could be merged with one of the articles on Chinese ceramics, but given how easy it would be to add the definition in a direct edit of those pages instead, I see no reason to do even that. HillbillyGoat (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have expanded the article. The confident claims above that this could not be done are thereby refuted. I shall now put the article forward at DYK and so expect it to be on the main page as soon as we have dispensed with this disruptive discussion. Warden (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone said that it couldn't technically be expanded, but I don't think that the fact that you added info on the sale of china and chinese export porcelain that would be better served in the other suggested articles negates anyones arguments above. Contrary to what you might believe, scrounging for bits of information so it can be spread thinly among numerous articles is not the best way to make an encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the term "chinaman" seems to be without a doubt used far less than phrases like "china salesman" or "china vendor". You're trying far too hard to turn an article about a non notable term into an article on china sales in general, quoting minutia which would, once again, fit better in the greater article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 25 April 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.