Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ying (state)

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. The discussion indicates that this is a notable historical polity and the article should be kept. RL0919 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ying (state)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Created by a now indeffed user back in 2013. No sources, terrible grammar. Possibly a notable subject, should still be completely blanked and then possibly redone Hydromania (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article has been HEYMANNed although it would seem it's now about a different subject. I'd withdraw but I don't think I can after the discussion is already rolling. So, keep new article, with thanks to Khu'hamgaba Kitap.03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Khu'hamgaba Kitap's rewrite and the sourcing added. Delete: As the nomination says, the present article is near incomprehensible. The Records of the Grand Historian do contain some text describing origins of Ying, though more as a clan name: [1]. Improving the article would require solid sources and neither Sima Qian nor anything else I have found seems up to that task. The text elsewhere at Yi_(husbandman)#Descendants seems better grounded and referenced; applying WP:TNT to the present article seems to me to be appropriate (though I will be happy to revise my opinion if someone with better Chinese than mine can renovate and reference the article). AllyD (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC) AllyD (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cambridge History of Ancient China (1999) has specific mentions of the state (pp. 312, 407-8), in terms of archaeological significance and as part of the Zhou-era expansions and enfeoffment processes into Eastern China. The state is mentioned in the writings of Mengzi (孟子). Clearly WP:MoS problems with the article as it currently stands, but WP:TNT seems extreme here since only a little work is required to repair.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you dig up enough material for a stand-alone article, or do you think it should it just be redirected to Xia dynasty? There isn't a single date in the article so I'm not totally sure what time period it belongs in.Hydromania (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it... Goldsztajn (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a stub that needs expansion. STSC (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a poorly written stub currently, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I can't find any information supporting the current confusing claims of a Xia dynasty connection to the state, but it was most certainly extant for at least part of the Spring and Autumn period. I've fixed the first line based off what I've found (as well as adding a map and infobox), but if more information can be found, that'd certainly make it better. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 18:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:RS + WP:INCITE now added, WP:MoS problems addressed....thanks to the good work of Khu'hamgaba Kitap (and a little of my own). Should be an easy close... :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Khu'hamgaba Kitap: thanks for your expansion, but please be careful not to conflate the two different states both romanized as Ying. zh:應國 (in Pingdingshan, Henan) is better known with lots of archaeological discoveries, and is the one covered in The Cambridge History of Ancient China. 英國 (in modern Anhui) is lesser known. Confusingly, both states are pronounced Ying in modern Mandarin and both were conquered by Chu. The original article was about the one in Anhui. -Zanhe (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the Chinese characters at Ying?. Hydromania (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Since the article has now morphed into the topic of 應, I've removed all info about 英 and adjusted the wikidata link. There really need to be two separate articles, similar to Xu (state) and Xǔ (state). -Zanhe (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And the essay wp:TNTTNT, to which i contributed, explains good reasons why a poor article should not be deleted only for it to be recreated, when we know the topic is notable. --Doncram (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2019 (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.