Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dong Sheng

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Sheng[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG). I do not see a single reliable, independent secondary source in this article which could support a claim of notability. I tried to identify reliable sources (Google scholar, Google, Google books, Jstore, news) but I found nothing. The earliest version of the wikipedia article was copied from the website of L´Associazione Shengming Shu http://www.dongsheng.it/chi-siamo-2/ (edit history). JimRenge (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page might be a prank, self-promotion, or something else, but it's definitely cruft. The only possible RS is misquoted. Searching Qu Wanli's Shàngshū jīnzhù jīnyì 尚書今注今譯 on Google Books finds no reference to either 東聖 or 聖玫. Neither of these terms in mentioned by any source in the Chinese Text Project. A Google search for the phrase "東聖玫" finds only five ghits—one from the WP article and four from the dongsheng.it website. Also, does the edit history suggest sock puppetry? Keahapana (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This happens to fall under one of my personal areas of interest, but despite searching pretty hard I can find nothing whatsoever about it in secondary sources. It smacks of a modern organisation trying to invent an impressive history for themselves; none of the claims in the article seem to be supported by valid historical scholarship. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the editors who did most the work to this article are separate people, but likely have conflict of interest. (evidenced by saying they had permission to copy a website into the article, which was a copyvio (see edit history). I cannot conclusively confirm any of this meets WP:V, however since the main source is a 2000 year old book I can't find a translation of, I am undecided on it either way. (although citing a 'Private Edition of a possibly self-published book as a secondary source is suspicious) Additionally the 'organisation' is pretty sketchy, even if the philosophy is genuine there are WP:PROMO issues. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Delete You are really funny. You are like children. You believe that something is true just because you can find it on the internet or on a book. You look like my grandmother, who believes that one thing is true just because you watch it on television! Do you have any idea how many authentic traditions are not present in any of the official sources? For confidentially reasons, for example, or just because Mao Tze-tung have destroyed almost everything of the China's tradition, first of all books? I am personally in touch with some Taoist ancient schools in Hong Kong and Taiwan, which have their own "Book of Document", handed down from father to son, from generation to generation. Younger have a secular history. Yet you will never find them in books or on the web. Think about it because today there is no space for these traditions on Wikipedia. Anyway, I agree to delete the page. Greetings.

I agree with the bulk of your comment here, certainly it would be a useful cultural project to reconstruct and publish these traditions, but until this happens, Wikipedia will remain bereft of these matters. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks independent coverage; no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2017 (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.