- 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. Sandstein 05:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not display sufficient notability, and seems to have a redundant role - there is no need or use for a long list of plots from both history and fiction on Wikipedia. The article is poorly laid out and poorly written, repeating information from the first and second sections ("Begin" and "Other notable executions and Murders" [sic]) in the third ("Brief timetable", which unfortunately is not quite so brief as intended), and with inconsistent style throughout. Additionally, the article does not distinguish between the historical and fictional plots, making an already-unclear article with no clear notability additionally confusing. Please discuss below. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion 1 the article does not distinguish between the historical and fictional plots/ the additional issues of poor writing and inaccuracy ======== gauge00's page is for the list of assissanation plots of the ROMANCE of 3 kingdoms. Therefore the list contains only fictional ones!! Then what on earth that list should distinguish between the historical and fictional ones? What line was the line you said that gauge00 did not distinguish between historical and fictional one? Pick one and show here. Once again why should that page distinguish between historical one and fictinal one? And You said the words "inaccuracy", where exists inaccuracy? Pick one and show. And Timeline of the Three Kingdoms period is very similar to gauge00 page.
- The TITLE ITSELF doesn't differentiate between history and fiction; it refers simply to "Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms", and nowhere in the title is "Romance of" found. Given the academic usage of "the Three Kingdoms" to refer to a historical period, the title of the article should have been "Assassination plots in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms". If the page is not deleted on other grounds, then a change of name to reflect the NOVEL in the title rather than the ERA would be appropriate.
- And your statistics do not change the fact that the "Brief Timetable" was not at all brief; for an example of brevity, see the Romance of the Three Kingdoms page wherein the entire plot of the novel is summarised in less space than the whole of the timetable. Of course, that point is now irrelevent, since the author removed it "after dusgusting morons opened their wide filthy mouths" and "after hearing some dogs started to shit". Finally, as Sgeureka shows, the article solely serves to act as a plot summary (detailing specific elements of the plot, ie. assassination attempts) rather than an encyclopaedic resource. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The TITLE ITSELF doesn't differentiate between history and fiction; ========= (gauge00) If you have any time, go to the List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms, and attach "AFD" tag on that page insisting that "Given the academic usage of the Three Kingdoms to refer to a historical period" And I'd like to know that; if I have forgotten the insertion of the words of "ROMANCE", then this could be the reason of DELETION REQUEST by your reasoning?
- that the "Brief Timetable" was not at all brief;==== (gauge00) Funny. Did you think the 'brief' words would stick to that page forever, and that anyone must not delete that word 'brief'? And if A article is not brief, but its title contains brief words, then it would be a good candidate of AFD for you?
- entire plot of the novel is summarised in less space than the whole of the timetable ==== (gauge00) Who gave you the privilege to determine which summary is better than the other? Is your personal perference is something like, that does not like the style of page The Ancestor's Tale? And it is funny, do you really think that an entire plot EVER exists in ROMANCE of the three kingdom?? You surely have an ability of making summaries of Doctor Who, MacGyver and the like. What is the summary of Prison Break (season 3)? Attack AFD on Prison Break (season 3). Its episode section seems to be too long to read.
- (gauge0) I found a summary of the ROMACE of 3; Which is The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) The non-historical context of "Fictional people of the Three Kingdoms" is obvious enough from the title; a historical category would not be labelled as fictional. 2) Yes, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms certainly does have an entire plot, which is summarised in brief on its page, as a summary should be by definition. 3) I have a right to believe that this article serves as nothing more than a few points of the plot taken into a different context without any encyclopaedic use; this is not at all helped by the fact that it is too long and disjointed to prove useful(and hence, SHOULD be brief). So YES, I do believe the main page plot summary is more effective, because it actually serves a purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjitheijneb (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) The non-historical context of "Fictional people of the Three Kingdoms" is obvious enough from the title; a historical category would not be labelled as fictional. ==== (gauge00) Ridiculous. Haha. Funny. I want to hear your answer when some asks you whether or not the charactor Cao Cao of ROMANCE of 3k is a FICTIONAL character or not in the ROMANCE of 3k. definately I think Cao Cao is also a fictional. But the List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms is just for the people who were created by the author of 3k ROMANCE, those who were NOT written in formal records like Records of the Three Kingdoms or Zizhi Tongjian or etc, by that reason, Cao Cao was could NOT be in that list. Now, if then, If I wanted to make a list of all the characters of 3k ROMANCE, whether fictional or not, and If I wanted to make its title List of people of the Three Kingdoms, then will you insist that List of people of the Three Kingdoms should be List of people of ROMANCE of the Three Kingdoms?? Do you understand my question?? Can you understand that both List of people of the Three Kingdoms (named ALL list)and List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms (named FORGE list) would be good and legal wikipedia pages? Cao Cao could be in ALL list only. However Diaochan could be in both ALL andd FORGE list. You should understand correctly the meaning of fictional of List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the article is of no importance in this discussion, as it is not a reason for deletion. However, if you must know, Cao Cao is NOT fictional, as even if some of his exploits in the Romance were fictional, he as a character is not. You may describe a fictionalised version of Cao Cao, but Cao Cao is nevertheless historical. Thus, all historical personages would be legible for List of people of the Three Kingdoms and, by extension illegible for the Fictional list. Fictional characters, not being from the historical period, thus are entered into the List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms as stated in the article - "Fictional characters in Luo Guanzhong's historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms and those found in other cultural references to the Three Kingdoms are listed separately in List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms." Thus, without mentioning either "Romance" or "Fictional", the article is delineated as being about historical characters. It is necessary to disambiguate between history and fiction, and this is represented by the addition of the qualifiers "Fictional" or "Romance of" in the title. In conclusion, being "fictional" is antithetical to being "historical" in this context; a character cannot be both, though their describe actions and stories may be; inclusion in one requires exclusion in another, since a person cannot simultaneously be real and fictional.
- Now, if you have a problem with the naming conventions for these pages, please contest that on the relevent pages. This is a deletion discussion for THIS article, and I am quite happy to accept that the naming convention is not a valid cause for deletion; if you have any argument against reasons that ARE, please feel free to present them. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Benjitheijneb and others above. 220.255.1.88 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTPLOT Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I showed that you purveyor are incompetent at Talk:Records of the Three Kingdoms. Do you still think that 184 was the beginning year of the records of 3k? (Gauge00 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Please do not attack Snuge purveyor; he has proven himself competent time and time again (not that he should need to), and you have no right to be criticising his or anyone else's capability. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- gauge00 I once again say to you that the person who changed 189 to 184 was Special:Contributions/Ordaz17. (Gauge00 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
三国(Sanguo) has two characters; san(三) means three(3); Guo(国) means nation, or kingdom, or whatsoever.
Therefore 三国(Sanguo) means '3 kingdoms'. Too easy to understand. Ehrefore "three kingdoms" does not mean
"three kingdome period". Some people insist that "3 kindoms means 3 kingdoms period, academically, or histocally." This opinion is just a shit. However I can understand his opinion cause Qing means Qing dynasty or the period of Qing dynasty or the region that Qing power reached, etc. However his insisting is just a shit.
三國志(sanguo zhi) means "record of 3 kingdoms". We can understand the meaning of zhi at http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/%E5%BF%97 Records of the Three Kingdoms was the page of this 三國志. It was written by Jin Dynasty (265–420). Jin conquered all three, therefore we, the conquerors, pompously, were to write history of the poor,humble,perished 3 kingdoms. It was the mind of the writer of it, if I am correct.
三國志(sanguo zhi) begans in 189 and ends 280. Records of the Three Kingdoms said that it began in 184. It is totally wrong, if I am correct.
The book 三國志 is very difficult to read, and is boring, though I have never read it. The main drawback of it
is that it was collection of biographies of many many individuals. Just boring. Therefore in order to make it more entertaining and easy to read, someone has to mangle and hash 三國志, and to arranges each stories and biographies of 三國志 CHRONICALLY. The one who did this job was Luo Guanzhong.
THe name of his book is 三國志通俗演义(Sanguozhi Tongsu Yanyi), or 三國志 演义.
This title means "I made the boring 三國志 easy to read. I rearranged it.
I added dialogues. Sometimes exaggeration, I gave lifes to boring characters of 三國志.
Hey, you can read this novel without any trouble, even though you are NOT university properssor.
You dont need any 'academical' or 'historical' minds to read and understand 三國志.
Before you surely have difficult times, that whevenver you were to says something about Liu Bei, some academical man promptly and pompously said to you that that is not historical or
you can not distiguish history and fictional".
Anyway Sanguozhi Tongsu Yanyi is called in English as Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms sould be understand as a animated version of the record of the three kingdoms.
Funny one is that ... Romance of the Three Kingdoms starts in AD 184.
The reason why 184 was chosen is just the author's will, just his preference.
But after Romace started in 184, some morons began insisting 三國志 began in 184 also.
I added a comment at Talk:Records_of_the_Three_Kingdoms.
Another Funny one is that some people insist that the Three Kingdoms period began in 184, or in 189,
though the last Han Emperor Xian of Han still had his chair in 220.
We can see this funny statement However, many Chinese historians and laymen extend the starting point of this period back to the Yellow Turban Rebellion in 184..
We can see the power the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
Yes, laymen could do that. However wiki academical men did that also.
Still Funny one is that there EXISTS a page named of List of people of the Three Kingdoms, list of historical people significant to the Three Kingdoms period.
Please do search 'List of people of something.." in wiki. You would find many many many so many List.
But there is ONE special one. List of people of the Three Kingdoms is the special one.
This is List of people of SOME period.
There is no List of people of Han period. There is no List of people of Qing period.
There is no List of people of Emperess Victoria period. There is no List of people of Elisabeth I period.
However this is golden and platinum plated one, List of people of the Three Kingdoms.
We can see the power the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
If Luo Guanzhong did not write Romance of the Three Kingdoms,
there DEFINTELY would be no such stupid thing like, List of people of the Three Kingdoms;
However if I added DiaoChan, a fictional character, on that list, a great watch dog would bite me
barking Diaochan is a fictional one. Younger Qiao was allowed, but Diaochan was not allowed.
Another Funny thing is that there EXISTS a page named of List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms.
List of fictional people of aaaaaarhhhh period??? What a nonsense.
Therefore I made a List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
Any academical men and historically oriented men could not boast of his high knowledges on my new page,
I think. Instead they will boast his knwleges in front his college students, if they have any.
Anyaway if the phrase Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms period looks strange to you,
then you should think it as Assassination plots in the ROMANCE of the Three Kingdoms instead.
Then it fixes all. There is no need to discuss to AFD. And if you had not read 10 times the unabridged
ROMANCE of the threekingdoms, then you have no right to vote on this discussion, cause you are not apt
to discuss. I think so.
- I see that you clearly have no sense of my comments, so I'll make this clear: 1) a historical novel is not a "less boring" version of history; if you think it is, you must be insane. It's a piece of FICTION set in a historical period. 2) Diaochan is, to all intents and purposes, HISTORICALLY NONEXISTENT. Writing about a fictional character does not make it any less fictional, and if you think that doing so is true, you should seek professional help. 3) You have absolutely no proof that the Three Kingdoms era was extended to 184 as a direct result of the Romance - that can be justified by purely logical sense, since the major players in the Three Kingdoms era (eg. Liu Bei, Cao Cao) gained their foothold on power due to their roles in the Yellow Turban Rebellion and Ten Eunuchs incident. If you can provide any evidence for that, please do, and I will change my view on that.
- But here's the most important one which you don't seem to get: 4) For the LAST TIME, the naming convention is not the reason I put this article up for AfD. You keep ignoring the fact that the ultimate reason for the AfD is lack of notability and an excessive detailing of plot. If anyone can combat THESE reasons - and no argument against these reasons has been presented - I will withdraw my support for the AfD. But at the moment, all you've managed is to hurl abuse, disregard the knowledgeability of other users, throw a temper tantrum in cyberspace and make a fool of yourself. So when you've gotten over that, you may want to provide arguments for notability and usefulness.
- I am tired of this pointless argument over naming conventions which have no effect on the AfD whatsoever; I just want civil discussion of the article, so I will not respond to further comments on the naming. And without the personal attacks would be nice, thank you. With all due respect, Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:52, 22 June 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.