Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xu Yuanchong

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Yuanchong[edit]

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

I can't find sufficient RS support for the notability of this translator. Created by SPA. Tagged as an orphan since September. Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is a problem to get sources from China sometimes, but this translator has his share of publications and is apparently regarded and contributed to translation theories... the single purpose of this account is not fully clear to me. I guess he made it for his class room project; see his talk page for links L.tak (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have substantial RS sources that discuss him? And as to the author, he is generally considered an SPA if he has only edited one article -- which from what I can see is the case here. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to indicate (re SPA), that it should be used with a bit of care: in this case the single purpose of the author was not to make this article, but I do get the point... I think the articles at the style section are close, but realize their is no source in the article which specifically addresses him as the sole point of the article. But the fact that his theory is used substantially and he is used as an example of domestication (in combination with the many non reviewed papers in the MSc abstracts that I have no entry to) establishes for me notability sufficiently. I will see if I can find also the articles establishing it to the letter of notability (persons), possibly by using chinese sources, but we seem to differ whether that is strictly necessary here... L.tak (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your contributions to the article. Second, perhaps our misunderstanding relates to what an SPA is -- an SPA is defined in wp:SPA as "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." This editor's edits are in fact limited to one article, so he meets the definition -- using the phrase with care requires that we make sure it is accurate, which it is. The above comments did not assert what the SPA's motive was. Finally, I'm happy -- if refs support the notability of this translator per wp notability standards, for the article to be kept. I'm not sure that the improvements to date quite meet GNG or any of our other standards, however, but will be happy if we get it to that point. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

our misunderstanding in SPA came indeed from definition. I thought you suggested motives by mentioning the SPA in the argumentation for the AfD; my apologies. More to the point: we have refs now at nr 1,4,6 and 8 which specifically address Xu (3 of them in different scientific journals; 1 a news report on a prize) so with that for me also the burden for notability is explicitly fulfilled (IMO). There are still issues with the article (referencing and trivia), but those are not AfD-worthy. Cheers! L.tak (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I think the GNG is satisfied (but not by a large margin). I don't think the SPA label is a helpful label for student editors in cases like this because, at AfD, "SPA" tends to carry rather different overtones. (Using the pedantic definition, most of us were SPAs once...) bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For this is almost always a good idea to look for sources in his Chinese name. This is a 45-minute TV program about him aired on CCTV-10. Also this. Passes GNG. T. Canens (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2012 (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.