Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Mulan (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Mulan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

Time for another AfD. Despite the bombastic claims in this article and the promise of forthcoming sources, they remain entirely lacking. To the extent this may be because of her nationality, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs about what reliable sources do and don't cover. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Mulan participants: Shadowowl (talk · contribs), Oakshade (talk · contribs), and Simonm223 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Last AfD's conclusion was Keep, and I can't see that anything has changed enough to alter the previous consensus. She has received significant coverage in English-language Chinese media, and at least one full-length biography in Chinese. (Also, the dead links work for me). Atchom (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is none of the information in this article cited to these seemingly great sources? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean autobiography - see below on the reliableness of these sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the last AfD was so recent, there's no change in opinion so I'll repeat what I typed there; The All-China Women's Federation, Vision China Times, Yibada and GBTimes have extensive coverage of this person.[1][2][3][4]. The Journal of Modern Chinese History gave an extensive review of her autobiography as well as extensive biographical information.[5] And these are all just English language sources. Most certainly much more exists in Chinese. The nom needs to learn the basic tenants of Wikipedia:Notability. As WP:NEXIST states, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. If there's an issue of a controversial statement in the article that you believe needs sourcing, consider placing a citation-needed tag at the specific content.Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the article stands I'd have to tag almost every sentence with it, which would be obviously disruptive. If these sources actually support the information in the article, then we're talking, but as of now they don't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to ignore the existence of in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:N and only go by the coverage that's placed in an article at the time of an Afd, then you'd have to make your case on WP:N's talk page, not try to push a new agenda in a single AfD.Oakshade (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in this article is verified. Her autobiography is exactly that - unverified and according to the Amazon write up, pretty fantastical. It appears like major life details were disputed for decades (maybe still) by offical sources. The Amazon write up disagrees with the two Woman in China page in significant details like her marriage(s), kids etc. The WIC source is pure propaganda and basically screams unreliable. Just look at some of the other stories there like [6] Without a real reliable source thos has to be removed. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because an Amazon publicity piece on a book disagrees with the one of the extensive coverages that exist of this person? What does this have to do with WP:NOTABILITY?Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references may be propaganda, but that someone is notable enough for the CPC to propagandize about is itself an indicator of notability. If we were to write articles about modern Chinee people without reference to that kind of sources we wouldn't have much left. Atchom (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the problem with sourcing an encyclopedia article to propaganda, I really don't know what else to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who is an administrator, you seem to be curiously unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. First of all, dismissing Chinese official sources as "propaganda" is simplistic and POV. Secondly, even if they were propaganda, government sources are still considered reliable for factual information, see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. If you read academic writings such as The Cambridge History of China, they source enormous amounts of "propaganda". -Zanhe (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I write about this stuff on an academic basis. I'm well aware of what's propaganda and what's not. The fact is you simply cannot write about modern PRC history without using loads of CPC "propaganda". To take a very basic example, there aren't any non-PRC government sources about the biographical backgrounds of most of the top Chinese leadership, but we can't simply not write about those people. Read some modern academic literature on Chinese politics if you don't believe me. Atchom (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that being old is notable and nothing in the article is sourced, let alone sourced to independent reliable sources. I also agree with Legacypac's analysis of the autobiography and WIC as sources. Neither constitute a WP:RS as far as I can tell either, and should be disregarded. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my first nomination of this article. » Shadowowl | talk 09:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - article is poorly written but it's simply ridiculous to question her notability. I'm familiar with the subject and have written several articles of early Communist Chinese spies (see Qian Zhuangfei, Li Qiang, Hu Di). Huang Mulan was one of Chinese Communist Party's most famous spies, highly praised by Premier Zhou Enlai for alerting party members of the defection of the Party head Xiang Zhongfa and saving the life of Politburo member Guan Xiangying. A Google search of her Chinese name yields more than 1500 books and more than 100,000 web pages, including numerous articles from mainstream media. Not only is her autobiography published by an academic publisher, it caused such a stir that it was reviewed by the Journal of Modern Chinese History, and elicited much debate in Chinese media, see Phoenix News. Guo Moruo, perhaps the most influential modern Chinese scholar, wrote a major novel based on her life, which has been adapted into multiple television dramas, see Xinhua. -Zanhe (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [7] confirms she was a real person and is "notable". Quote from the article: ’ This book reviews the heroine’s life and her dedication to the revolution in the past 100 years, and it is indeed worth reading. ZHOU Bin (周斌), Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing--Jirangmoon (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, meets GNG even if most sources are in Chinese. There is an article in zh-wiki about her (黄慕兰) which I tried to link under Languages, with no success. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references that talk about her life in depth, supporting several claims made in the story. There is plenty of material in links given by Oakshade above to demonstrate notability and improve article further. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: I've added the language link by merging the two separate wikidata records. -Zanhe (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We've been over this quite recently and she's notable regardless of article quality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO as laid out by Zanhe. Adding Chinese sources would certainly improve article quality. In the meantime, AfD is not cleanup. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Zanhe. Julia Kinsley (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Julia Kinsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Julia Kinsley has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Into the Rift CommanderLinx (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We've been over this quite recently and she's notable regardless of article quality. Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before, which sets forth an agenda and conditions precedent to doing a WP:AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 74.50.209.241 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — 74.50.209.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. 71.161.239.237 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)— 71.161.239.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.