Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai-pan

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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tai-pan[edit]

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

This article is about a term, and a seemingly non-notable one at that; per WP:NOT and WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia articles shouldn't normally be about terms, which is what Wiktionary is for. There is already an entry for tai-pan at Wiktionary. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find an entry there for "Tai-pan", "Tai-Pan" or "tai-pan". Could you give us a link? Peridon (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. It's wikt:taipan, without a dash. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I should have thought of the hyphen. Peridon (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but in my opinion this is an article, not a definition, and it contains far more than the Wiktionary entry, which I quote here: "A foreign businessman in China; a tycoon. [from 19th c.]". Peridon (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is only a definition. It's an article about a term and we generally don't do that unless the term is notable enough. This notability hasn't been established. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The history of taipans, particularly in Hong Kong, could be used to flesh out the article more. Here are a few supports for its notability: "The Last Taipan Retires in Hong Kong" (New York Times); "21-st Century Tai-Pan" (Forbes); "The Taipan from Yale" (Time). Also, books have been written about the Hong Kong taipans.[1][2]Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead could use some minor rewording, that is, changing the "the term xxx refers to..." to "xx is..." (the former reoccurs often in enwiki). That said, the topic is beyond a dictionary entry.--Cold Season (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is more than a dictdef, and similar to such articles as mandarin (bureaucrat). —Lowellian (reply) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a dictionary definition. More sociological and lexical in nature. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:38, 13 January 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.