Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ni hao

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 soft redirect to wiktionary. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ni hao

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

This should be changed to a soft redirect to Wiktionary, as it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for articles (particularly WP:NOT#DIC). It's a mishmash of dictionary material (usage notes, speculative etymology, corresponding phrases in other languages), OR, and speculation. 你好 is not a greeting that has been adopted in other languages, like hello and ciao nor does it have a widespread cultural connection beyond its linguistic one, like as-salamu alaykum (which is used in many Muslim but non-Arabic-speaking cultures). I made it a soft redirect, and that edit was contested by an IP who did not provide an edit summary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-refirect to wikt:ni hao, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect per nom. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect without prejudice to creation of an actual article on the phrase, akin to the Hello article. But at present, if you stripped out all the parts that are either speculative or unsourced (as we should do if the article remains), all you'd be left with is a dicdef, and that's what wiktionary is for. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per nom. Its a common word/phrase, but there's no real encyclopedic content. Cnilep (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per nom. BlueRobe (talk) 02:11, 26 September 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.