Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dai Shiqi


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Dai Shiqi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PROD objected with an invalid reason that I cannot understand. No sources are provided online, fails GNG completely. Timothytyy (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Timothytyy (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa,  and Peru.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Only primary sources. A search of their name in Chinese in gnews yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Search results turn up nothing but Wikipedias, Wikipedia mirrors, and social media. INS Because I did a bad job. There's no information present in the article that's not already present at List of ambassadors of China to Peru and List of ambassadors of China to Equatorial Guinea, so nothing to merge. Even his baidu is a two sentence stub. Delete. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) INS 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Switch to keep after seeing User:Cunard's results below. I admit my BEFORE was pretty lazy. Apologies for that. Folly Mox (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Notability (people), which says: "People are presumed if they have received significant coverage in  that are,  of each other, and .If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Sources   The book notes: "... 戴詩琪,年籍及學歷待查. 戴詩琪駐赤道幾內亞「大使」. 文學藝術界聯合會」第二屆全國委員會委員. 一九五四年八月,當選第一屆「全國人民代表大會」代表. 一九五五年,任「中國人民對外文化協會」理事、「中國舞蹈工作者協會」副主席. 一九五六年,任「中國亞非團結委員會」委員並當選「民盟」第二屆中央委員. 一九五七年五月,任「中央實驗歌劇院」舞劇團長、「北京舞蹈學校」校長. 一九五八年九月,當選第二屆全國人民代表大會北京市代表;十二月當選連任俄中國國民黨革命委員會第四屆中央常務委員. 一九五九年四月十七日連任俄中國人民政治協商會議第三屆全國委員會委員(俄國民黨革命委員會) ;同月廿七日任僞第二屆全國人民代表大會常務委員;五月二日任..." From Google Translate: "Dai Shiqi, age and academic qualifications are yet to be checked. Dai Shiqi is the "Ambassador" to Equatorial Guinea. Member of the Second National Committee of the Federation of Literary and Art Circles. In August 1954, he was elected as a representative of the first National People's Congress. In 1955, he served as a director of the "Chinese People's Association for Foreign Culture" and vice chairman of the "Chinese Dance Workers Association". In 1956, he served as a member of the "China Asian-African Solidarity Committee" and was elected as a member of the second Central Committee of the "Democratic League". In May 1957, he served as the director of the dance troupe of the "Central Experimental Opera House" and the principal of the "Beijing Dance School". In September 1958, he was elected as Beijing representative to the Second National People's Congress; in December, he was re-elected as a member of the Fourth Central Standing Committee of the Russian-Chinese Kuomintang Revolutionary Committee. On April 17, 1959, he was re-elected as a member of the Third National Committee of the Russian-Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (Revolutionary Committee of the Russian Kuomintang); on the 27th of the same month, he was appointed as a member of the Standing Committee of the Second National People's Congress; on May 2 appoint..."   The book notes: "戴詩琪 Dai Shiqi 経歴 1984 年 2 月在 2 亻>大使館参事宫 87 年 1 月駐赤道キ二大使. 90 年 10 月駐 ㄦ ㄧ 大使. たいしせい戴詩晴 Dai Shiqing 経歴 1950 年地質工作部技術者,工程師. 文革時:批判る. 経歴 1989 年 5 月当时中国汽車(自動車工業連合会代理理事長. 90 年 6 月当时中国汽車工業總公司總經理.  93 年 3 月第 8 期全人大福建省代表. "  From Google Translate: "Dai Shiqi 経歴 February 1984 in February 亻> Embassy Counselor Palace Ambassador to Equator in January 1987. Ambassador to ㄦㄧ in October 1990. Dai Shiqing Dai Shiqing 経歴In 1950, he was a technician and engineer of the Ministry of Geological Work. During the Cultural Revolution, he was criticized. In May 1989, he was the acting chairman of the China Automobile Industry Association. In June 1990, he was the general manager of China Automobile Industry Corporation. In 1993 Representative of Fujian Province in the 8th session of the National People's Congress in March."  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dai Shiqi  to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) </ul>
 * @Cunard They seem very biographical and non-secondary to me. They just list out the career of the subject; per WP:SECONDARY, no "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" can be seen. Timothytyy (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) says: "People are likely to be if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is  conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does  guarantee that a subject should be included." Notability (people) says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." Biographical dictionary lists reference publications titled Who's Who as an example.  I consider inclusion in Chinese Communist Who's Who (published by a Taiwanese publisher) and A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons (published by a Japanese publisher) to be strong indicators of notability for a Chinese diplomat. Each of these sources is a synthesis of facts from primary or secondary sources that discuss the subject's biographical background. The authors of these books had to decide which facts were important enough to include in the subject's biography.  No original research says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Cunard (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You added a large chunk of undigested information, but you still didn't provide anything that meets the secondary source requiement, i.e. the requiement of GNG. You said these sources are "strong indicators of notability for a Chinese diplomat as each of these sources are synthesis of facts from primary or secondary sources", so you consider them to be notable. Are you able to find these secondary sources? If not, I don't see why it passes GNG or ANYBIO. Timothytyy (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to dismiss either the Who's Who or A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons as being primary. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Never said they were primary, I believe they are tertiary. However the tertiary sources didn't provide any sources to their claims, so we aren't reaching any secondary sources, which I believe is the only type of source that helps an article pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For both books, the Google Books snippet view does not show whether the entries cited any primary or secondary sources. The existence of any additional sources is immaterial since these two sources are sufficient. No original research says (bolding added for emphasis): "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Notability (people) says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)."  The "no original research" policy and the "notability for people" guideline demonstrate that these two national biographical dictionaries are perfectly acceptable in establishing notability.  Cunard (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it is incorrect to treat the two books as a country's standard national biographical dictionaries as they are not even published by (not even in) the PRC or the CPC, the country which the subject comes from and serves. Therefore, it doesn't pass the ANYBIO criterion. Secondly, even when tertiary sources are needed, it doesn't make an article pass GNG. GNG criterion which you provided: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Therefore, the two tertiary sources you provided do not contribute to GNG since they are not secondary, so BASIC is failed. Thus, all BIO criteria are failed. Timothytyy (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That Dai Shiqi was covered in "Chinese persons" dictionaries published by Japanese and Taiwanese publishers is very significant in establishing notability, even more so than if he was covered in a "Chinese persons" dictionary published by a Chinese publisher. It means he received international coverage. It is unclear whether Chinese Communist Who's Who and A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons are secondary sources or tertiary sources. But the policy No original research is very clear in saying that both secondary sources and tertiary sources can be used to establish notability. If the biographical dictionaries are tertiary sources, Cunard (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, tertiary sources can help establish notability, but according to GNG and BASIC, articles must have secondary sources to guarantee basic (i.e. presumed) notability. If we don't have secondary sources but only have 2 books which we don't know if fact-checking work is done due to the lack of references in them, we cannot ensure reliablity. For example, encyclopedias which doesn't list out references supporting their claims cannot provide notability as its accuracy can be challenged. This is why notability guidelines, e.g. GNG and BASIC, emphasize on secondary sources. The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. According to FAILN, anything that fails the notability criteria shall to be merged or deleted; as NOR is not an N guideline and it fails GNG due to the lack of secondary sources, I suggest a merge to the lists provided by Folly Mox, by gathering info provided by the sources, or a deletion.
 * GNG requires reliable secondary sources. If you believe a discussion on whether the sources are secondary or tertiary is necessary and my elaborations above are too simple, controversial, or problematic, I would be pleased to present my views more detailly. Thank you very much. Timothytyy (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The national dictionaries are reliable sources from reputable publishers. There is no requirement for reliable sources to cite sources in order to be considered reliable. The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. – it is unclear whether the national dictionaries are secondary sources or tertiary sources. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from primary sources, the national dictionaries are secondary sources. Cunard (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don't get why you mention the sources as "national dictionaries". Also, "if the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage" is just a very rough assumption, you don't even know whether the sources of these publications are 1. independent, 2. reliable, and 3. provide detailed coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the sources are not independent, they are primary sources. If the sources are not reliable sources, the national dictionaries would not have relied on them. If the sources do not provide detailed coverage, then per Notability (people) multiple sources can be combined to establish notability. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73 is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy No original research, which reflects this already. Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, according to PRIMARY, primary sources may be independent, and according to SECONDARY, secondary sources are not necessarily independent. Secondly, I still don't understand why the sources about Chinese people written by non-governmental Taiwanese and Japanese people are considered as national biographies, and why reliability is assumed. Timothytyy (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected but maintain that these national biographies are reliable sources that can be used to establish notability regardless of whether they are secondary or tertiary sources based on Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73 and No original research. I consider Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University and Kazankai to be reputable publishers. They are national biographies because of their scope. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (If you believe that these 2 sources are rooted with reliability, please find further sources that is secondary, which I would say is most preferred, which can conduct fact-checking.) Assuming their reliability, they are still encyclopedic and doesn't develop anything except the rigid history of the person, so I believe they are tertiary. I still root on general notability guidelines, I.e. GNG and BASIC. If the discussion didn't change the wordings of GNG and BASIC, the most basic guidelines, at all, I wouldn't say it is accepted by the community. Consensus isn't that strong after all. Timothytyy (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dai Shiqi was a Chinese ambassador in the 1980s and 1990s to Equatorial Guinea and Peru. It is very difficult to find sources for a Chinese ambassador whose tenure was in the pre-Internet era in South America and West Africa. He could have been covered by pre-Internet, offline Chinese, Peru, or Equatorial Guinea sources, but those are very hard to find. What we have is significant coverage in two national biographies published by a reputable Taiwanese publisher and a reputable Japanese publisher. I consider that sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I cannot see any possible significant events which may bring the subject SIGCOV. Even if there is, they might not be reliable. Also, let us gather other users' opinions, because I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Timothytyy (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pinging, who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to ping indviduals as it can be seen as WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Canvassing says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the Canvassing guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me guess what Espresso Addict will !vote, since they removed the prod. "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" WP:APPNOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Canvassing says: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." The editor who proposed the article for deletion is the AfD nominator so is already aware of the discussion and does not need to be pinged. The only other involved editor is the one who removed the proposed deletion. I noticed that the article creator has not been notified so I will notify them on their talk page. The article creator archived the notifications.  I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is better to err on the side of caution and not notify other editors of AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that concerned editors should be notified so long as the canvassing guideline is not violated. AfDs frequently have few participants, so informing concerned editors helps lessen that problem. Cunard (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. [I was already aware of this AfD before Cunard's ping] Cunard's sources do look sufficiently in-depth to meet GNG to me. Generally I'd prefer to keep articles on Chinese topics as we have a real problem with systematic bias but I won't issue a formal vote in the circumstances. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Espresso, this is why I think pinging is unnecessary. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll let ReplyTool figure it out. Feel free to refactor.Cunard's sources both seem reliable and independent, and each contributes to notability. My initial BEFORE was not adequate, so I'll look again on my own later (hopefully today?). I would translate the title of the first source as, and note that google translate guesses the language of the second source incorrectly. It's Japanese, but with a very high proportion of kanji, indicating little verb conjugation and few other particles. It's probably written in a very brief style like a list rather than full regular prose sentences (I can't read Japanese). Google translate does a little better job with that one if you feed it the correct starting language.Hoping to get back to this soon; already switched to keep above. Folly Mox (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the sources, for the better translation for the first source's title, and for the correction about the second source being in Japanese with a high proportion of kanji. I've fixed updated the citation templates in my comment. It was difficult to find significant coverage for Dai Shiqi, so it is unsurprising your WP:BEFORE did not find them. To find these sources, I searched for "Dai Shiqi", "戴诗琪" (his simplified Chinese name), and "戴詩琪" (his traditional Chinese name) and went through several dozen Google Books results that were passing mentions before I found these two sources. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this barely scrapes by based on Cunard's sources. It might be considered borderline, but I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping in this case because, as mentioned above, most sources will be offline or otherwise hard to find for a diplomat who was active before the 21st century. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.