Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Zhong (Ming dynasty)

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. In conjunction with the need to avoid systematic bias, coverage from such an early date in an official Chinese history satisifes the general notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Zhong (Ming dynasty)

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

Orphaned page created for no reason but to oppose a move request (Talk:Wang Zhong (Han dynasty)_, does not indicate the importance or notability of the subject. WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject... trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The only source cited only mentions the subject once, clearly not "significant coverage"; and considering the subject's entire biography was 47 Chinese characters in the primary historical source, it's unlikely that the article could be expanded much either. Timmyshin (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Classical Chinese is lighter on character counts, so 47 characters then could expand to somewhere like 80 contemporary Chinese characters worth of meaning (not going to try though). And History of Ming isn't really a primary source IMO (written in Qing Dynasty). Still WP:SOLDIER #5 (Jingnan Campaign#Battle of Zhengcunba re zhwp) seems not important enough of a role (surrendered to Yan forces and then made marquess). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 04:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, the point is that 47 characters is an extremely trivial coverage in a history book like History of Ming. Most of the other dozen biographies on that very page/chapter in History of Ming have hundreds, if not thousands of characters in their biographies, and it doesn't look like any of them has a page on English Wikipedia. (Also, as far as I've seen, non-modern Chinese historical books like History of Ming are usually considered primary sources in English-language history books' bibliography section.) Timmyshin (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- …and it doesn't look like any of them has a page on English Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not valid.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete History of the Ming is 322 volumes long. Everybody and his dog got a bio. So 47 characters is really nothing at all. The book is usually treated as archival material anyway. As far as English-language coverage goes, he is mentioned once in a Yongle bio. This article was created to make a WP:POINT about disambiguation policy, not to serve the reader. Claimsworth (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep History of Ming is not considered a primary source by wikipedia definition. Actually, it's based on numerous historical records, and clearly secondary. Since secondary sources can be used as references, the fact that a book is often uesd as referencing by English books doesn't mean it's primary at all. (See WP:PRIMARY) Having a biography on such a source and being honoured "靖安侯" will definitely get him past WP:ANYBIO. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage in the one source does not seem to meet the minimum to meet the interpretation of "significant" required to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. A European military figure and nobleman of similar prominence from the same era would have enough coverage for an article, and I wonder if he ought to be considered automatically notable for his title and rank. (Why the article was created isn't an issue as long as it's within policy…) —innotata 16:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid "similar prominence" is purely subjective; he's not prominent at all in my opinion. Don't be fooled by the English word "marquis", it's only a translation/European approximation. Except for imperial princes, Ming dynasty did not have a hereditary aristocracy class quite like Medieval Europe, and just like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, WP:OSE is also not valid. What should be considered are these facts: this guy was an opportunist who surrendered, along with his superior, to a rebellious usurper of the throne (Zhu Di) when his army approached, and was made a "marquis" later by the usurper-turned-emperor. Prior to the surrender, he was a subordinate under a （州）衛指揮僉事 (translated by Charles Hucker as "assistant commander of a (prefectural) guard"), and during his "tenure" as a "marquis", his highest "real-world" position had been a 都督僉事 (translated by Hucker as "assistant commander-in-chief"), a class 2 rank below "commander-in-chief" 都督 and "vice commander-in-chief" 都督同治 (Hucker, p. 544), both class 1 ranks. Timmyshin (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons I'll go into below. But first I must say I'd be tempted to vote keep just because of the flaws in the arguments above to delete. As has been stated above, creation of this page is not even remotely pointy, it's a valid response to the RM discussion and should be commended. (This deletion nomination is however arguably pointy, being raised by the nom of the RM.) Now to the positives: The subject does pass the GNG, barely but clearly. Chinese Wikipedia https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E6%96%87%E5%BA%93 has a similar stub (but I assume the Wikisource document(s?) to which it links are the source discussed above). Google web search gives me over a million hits, hard to say (not reading Chinese) how relevant any are but certainly a case to answer, Google books almost five thousand, similarly not easy to tell how relevant and some at least are not, I even had a look at Google images which may be more productive but still time consuming. In conclusion, a good stub which should be given a chance. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2014 (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.

Sockpuppet

For the record note that (1) article creator (myself) was not notified of this AfD, I would have supported, and (2) also the nomination contains a personal attack on myself for having created the en.wp stub from the zh.wp stub. (3) Support by User Claimsworth is from a now blocked sock. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]