Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Latter Five Poets of the Southern Garden

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The result was Speedy keep, non-admin close, withdrawn by nominator as article improved and only dissenting opinions offered ♪ daTheisen (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Latter Five Poets of the Southern Garden[edit]

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

Sigh. My PROD was removed because it's a stub, for some reason thinking stubs are immune from deletion for any reason. I'll quote myself from the PROD: "As it stands, it is literally just a list. A list of 5 things, 2 of which don't even have articles." The 3 working links are also stubs with no sources. There is no "Basic Info" or explanation text as is required by WP:STUB ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator note: Here's policy on lack of stub immunity for no sources, and they must have some actual explanatory information. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - I removed the PROD, and I see that the AfD rationale has not improved. I don't think that "stubs are immune from deletion". Simply, the fact of being a stub only is not a proper rationale for deletion. If an article has problems that can be dealt with editing rather than deletion, it must not be deleted, per deletion policy. Since adding sources and creating articles are obviously problems that can be dealt with editing, the nom rationale is moot (What the nom links about stubs is a style guideline, not policy). --Cyclopia ^talk 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not preventing anyone from improving the thing. I basically ran into a wall of "huh?" as Chrajohn did. It's because there's no content or context. I see Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article in the guidelines, and realize this precisely follows that. How would you react to an article that read "Number turkey 4 2 6 73 1" with half red links, marked as a stub? That's what it looks like to me, albeit with larger words. A stub needs an explanation of topic, some shot at notability and some kind of resourcing. New stubs might be treated more loosely by NPP as a courtesy but even that's on an assumption if immediate improvement. Would suggest you remove that text about being open to deletion, since any stub gets by? Actually, does this have an article on zh.Wikipedia with any kind of (English) usable resource? If yes, I'll give good faith on notability to the sister project and look a lot different at it. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I evidently still was not clear. The article is not a nonsense list, it clearly states that it is a list of Chinese poets and some of the links are blue and link to informative, even if short, articles. If it looks to you like a string of gibberish, I don't know, but you probably should read it better before considering it as such -it is not definitely as such. Given that there is some meaning in the article, it cannot be deleted simply because it is a very short stub. We do not delete article for problems which can be dealt with editing, simple as that. If you have other rationales to suggest deletion, fine, but the one you proposed is definitely not a valid one. And, yes, if you PROD an article and it gets deleted, you are obviously preventing anyone to improve it. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar returns a handful of hits and a general Google search returns a bunch more, but I can't evaluate any of them due to the language barrier. The term seems to have also been translated as "South Garden Five Gentlemen". --Chris Johnson (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you'll find that the "South Garden Five Gentlemen" was a name used for the Early Five Poets of the Southern Garden, active in the 14th centrury. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for expert attention. The presence of some hits in Scholar and Books for the string of Chinese characters would appear to indicate that this group is not something that someone made up. A Ming Dynasty literary circle would appear to make a strong initial case to be something an encyclopedia ought to cover, even without a lot of English language data out there. Unless there's some indication this is a hoax, and I don't see that, I see no reason to delete stated here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Smerdis. Obvious indications of notability and sources clearly exist. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that I have added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2009 (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.