Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsigo

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 redirect to Xiao (mythology). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hsigo

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

Per discussion at Talk:Hsigo; the non-existent subject of the article is the result of an OCR error and fails WP:GNG. Kayau (talk · contribs) 03:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the talk page comments are correct, Hsigo is the result of Google Books faulty OCR and thus fails verifiability. We are only enhancing and promulgating error by keeping the article. Edison (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless how this word originated, there are at least two authentic usage examples on GBooks: Symbolic and Mythological Animals (1992) and Companion for the Apprentice Wizard (2006). It is also in Illustrated Guide to Mythical Creatures (2011), according to this review. According to the talk page comments, the word has been used as a character's name on two U.S. television shows, Andromedia (2001) and Flying Monkeys (2013). That's pretty slim for notability, but this is definitely not an OCR misprint. After all, no one was using GBook scans back in 1992, were they? KlingonHeaven (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The comments at the talkpage discussion are convincing that this is the result of an error. --Cold Season (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. From comments on the talk page, it appears that this is a misspelling of hsiao/xiao. So the lemma should direct to xiao (mythology). The Viking 04:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Sock
Well-archive or Keep this article is WAY to interesting to just ditch into cyberspace. Is there a well-archiving mechanism on Wikipedia? Dcattell (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I actually meant the talk page, not the actual article. But, don't they go together? Dcattell (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- We could always move the talk page into someone's userspace! or maybe move the article to BJAODN? (then again, it's an error, not a hoax.) Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I find interesting about the controversy around this article is that there are quite a few Internet references to "Hsigo", even as creatures in computer gaming: but they almost all refer back to the Wikipedia article, which seems to have existed erroneously since 1 January 2005. Almost like some kind of vicious circle. I just wonder, is this an isolated case, or will we see more of this kind of phenomenon in the future?
Redirect to Xiao (mythology). The Language Log article relies on a Wikipedia talk page as its primary source for concluding the term is false. Which is self-referential. So we have no reliable source on the debunking, unless we want to say it's reliable that Victor Mair agreed with a Wikipedia discussion, which seems dodgy with no other source. Furthermore, I'm not totally convinced by the OCR error argument, the oldest source for the mythological creature usage is from 1992 [1] and it's a scan which clearly shows the word, I don't believe image scans are error corrected on a per-letter basis, and a 1992 book could not be the result of a prior Google Books OCR scan (GB wasn't yet invented). However this source is not enough alone for a Keep since we really don't know what it says (snippet view) and the other sources mentioned by KlingonHeaven are not reliable for determining the existence of this creature. The talk page should be preserved recommend userify or copy to Talk:Xiao (mythology) for further discussion, I believe Keahapana is almost surely right about the error in transcription as the ultimate cause, but when, where and how that error originated still seems uncertain. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect good way to keep. (Do I get to vote twice!?) Also, "Xiao (mythology)" is a good article (lower case). I guess the other mythological xiao could go under "Shanxiao (mythology)", if anyone gets around to it. Dcattell (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's starting to look like "Hsigo" and both "Xiao"s should redirect to a disambiguation page.Dcattell (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications. Any RS on the Romanization of Chinese will confirm that "hsigo" is not a phonemically possible Chinese word. As discussed on Talk:Hsigo, Cooper might have miscopied from Borges (but doesn't list the source). While the amusing OCR error of "Hsigo" for Hsiao is widespread, it admittedly might not be related to the original mistake. As discussed on Talk:Xiao (mythology), another possibility might be to move Hsigo to something like Hsiao (fiction) and add the Borges reference there. It seems preferable to have one article about verifiable Chinese mythological creatures called xiao/hsiao and another about the unverified mistakes and misspellings. Keahapana (talk) 22:24, 21 October 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.