Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song Shuming

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Song Shuming[edit]

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

Even if this is all true -- this martial artist was described as an "enigma" and his abilities were unverified even by his own contemporaries. I don't see how this creates notability, let alone verifiable notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of criteria do you use to decide that should be deleted? There are a couple references to him in Google books, but from what I've seen, probably not enough material to build a decent article (at least not in English). TheBlueCanoe (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's just the general sense that there wasn't enough verifiability and/or notability there. --Nlu (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that makes sense. Maybe there should be an article on Song Yuanqiao (the master whose lineage Song Shuming purported to be part of), and then this article can be combined into that. TheBlueCanoe (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is sourced and there's nothing in the article that shows notability. Statements like "he was an enigma in the Beijing martial arts world at that time" and was "reputed to have considerable martial ability", combined with a lack of sources, make the article read like rumor and hearsay instead of an encyclopedia. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no supported claims of notability. In fact, there's nothing that even verifies his existence. I can't evaluate the only source given since it says it's only available in Chinese. Astudent0 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 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.