Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangjing (china)

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shangjing (china)[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a WP:SPA (with a WP:COI username) about a Chinese village, I question why the draft was accepted by User:Aguyintobooks when it has 0 reference? By the way China has ~624,000 villages and 99.9% aren't notable by any means. We barely have any articles for the roughly ~41,636 Chinese towns and townships (typically administering ~10+ villages each). Timmyshin (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. All populated places are presumed notable under WP:GEOLAND even if they have a population of only 3 people (by consensus is the minimum population required). All 624,000 villages in China and all 41,000 regions are inherently notable and are not candidates for deletion. I did check, and this village does exist, and is where the article says it is, so I have no issue with WP:V criteria. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:GEOLAND Bobherry Talk Edits 01:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:PLACEDAB, this article should probably be located at Shangjing, Zhejiang. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 6 Shangjing's in Zhejiang alone, there's a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Rui'an, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Qingtian County, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Zhuji, a Shangjing Village (上井村) in Xianju County, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Jindong District, Jinhua, as well as this Shangjing Village (上境村) in Wucheng District, Jinhua. Since China has 30+ provinces, it's not unreasonable to estimate that there are 100+ Shangjing's in China. Creating an article for one and not the others (and not even listing all of them on the dab page) just because a certain WP:SPA comes from that village is a case of WP:Systemicbias, but who is going to create articles for all 624,000 villages? Not to mention we would also have to move thousands of articles on Chinese towns and townships already created for disambiguation reasons. Timmyshin (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand WP:systemic bias correctly, the solution is to write articles about all the other villages for which reliable external sources exist, not to delete articles that are the odd one of its kind. Deryck C. 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't wrong but that's only in theory. In practice it's impossible to write articles for all 624,000 articles, or even half of them, therefore this WP:systemicbias will remain until the time we die (if WP still exists). Even creating dab pages for all of them requires nothing short of a Herculean effort considering how few editors work on these topics. Timmyshin (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. While WP:GEOLAND is a thing, it's hardly the only consideration here. The article is clearly promotional, not reliably sourced, and at an inappropriate title. Whether the solution is stubifying and moving or deleting and starting over elsewhere is unimportant, but the article should not stay as it is, where it is. ansh 666 07:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for a Chinese village, this is extremely well made, unless we have already made a viable alternative, I don't think we should use TNT, I fully support a rename. @Timmyshin:, I think a new task-force at Wikiproject China would be needed to deal with this, its a huge project, as huge as doing the USA to begin with. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I have moved it to a more appropriate title as ^ suggested. I have also removed the offending unsourced mentions to some international tourist venture. The remaining article text is mostly made up of listing the official designated heritage buildings in the village, my thoughts are that these buildings are individually notable as historic protected sites (there are requirements for sources to grant protection, etc, etc. WikiProject historic sites has a consensus on it) I am therefore reluctant to remove them since there is a systemic bias against cultural buildings in non-western cultures. (I still think it should be speedy kept) --Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and all the keep comments above. This is indeed a real place (Shangjing near Tangxi, Jinhua, Zhejiang) attested by both Google Maps and Baidu Maps at the location indicated by the article. I searched for Chinese-language news sources and it appears that this village rose to fame this year because of its role in an international student exchange programme, and is therefore covered by a number of travel news sites: [1][2][3]. Deryck C. 10:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I usually vote on Indian villages. Sometimes though, there are articles for which I cannot find any references to verify the content. If I am able to find some basic information in census records (village name, area, population, literacy rate, schools), I advocate for keeping it. In this case, the article doesn't have English sources but there may be Chinese sources. If someone can find them and translate/verify, I will vote a keep. There are some nice images in the article and it seems whoever is writing it may have some personal knowledge of the village. So I don't want to delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The village meets GNG as there are sources ([4]、[5]) that discuss the history of the village in detail. --Antigng (talk) 09:02, 24 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.