Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanyan Shilu

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. I wonder how many of the people we have articles about will be remembered 1000 years from now... yandman 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanyan Shilu[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:N MrShamrock (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leader of an important people group. Just the fact we have his name 1000 years later is an indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he? I don't see any verifiability of that anywhere MrShamrock (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you missed the four large linked boxes labeled 'Chinese Wikisource has original text related to this article' at the bottom of the article? Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As pointed out by Edward321, we know his name many centuries later, and there are four sources in Chinese. recommend that the article be tagged for expert review, possibly translation.Vulture19 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator mentions WP:N but does not cite. Looking at WP:N#General notability guidelines near the top of the page, we find: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Reading through the ZH article, there is no reason to suspect insincerity of the EN article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with Edward321. Pastor Theo (talk) 05:18, 18 February 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.