Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Guangyang

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 . – Joe (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Guangyang[edit]

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

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

Single source, without enough information to pass WP:VERIFY. Was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. I asked User:Folly Mox to take a look and see if they could improve the sourcing, and they did work on the article, but as they said on their talk page, the subject is a bit out of their area of expertise. I can't find any in-depth sourcing, so it fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and China. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a quick Google Books search turns up enough to meet GNG: [1][2][3][4] (and many other sources available with a search for "汪廣洋"). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops – I misinterpreted the talk page request to improve the formatting of the citations, not to find additional sources. The article subject has got his own chapter subheading in the Ming Shi. The reason I didn't add any additional citations is because they'd all point to the same spot. I suspect I have access to the same versions of most of the standard histories as our Chinese language editors who cite using search strings instead of page numbers. It's actually quicker to look up that way, especially if the source is not famous enough to earn a modern punctuated edition.
This person's actually notable enough to be covered by modern historians (Mx. Granger's links 2 and 3 above each provide significant coverage), but I claim that the people with biographies in the standard histories are all going to pass GNG. We may only have one surviving source describing their life, but it's been put together from various lost sources by professional historians, who considered them important enough to create space for those people's stories in the execution of their historiography. I have no reason to question their professional opinions, no matter how long they've been dead for. Folly Mox (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep onel5969 what a shit! how dare you. He was the prime minister of Ming dynasty. Clealy passes WP:NPOL, a lot of source in Chinese language found. 49.237.19.178 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The subject is clearly notable. Except in BLP cases, a lack of citations is not a ground for deletion. The article is tagged for needing more citations; and should remain so. It needs improvement not deletion, unless of course it is a HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2023 (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.