Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danzhu


 * 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. John254 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Danzhu

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person appears to be a thoroughly non-notable figure, whose very existence is not verifiable. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources, and is written in a legendary style. The legend itself is so short and so simple (Emperor had a dumb son, invented Go to entertain him) that it could just be folded into the Go article. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Inappropriate to propose deletion of an actual historical figure. Please use the article's "Discussion" page to propose improvements, in a constructive manner. Badagnani (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that he is an actual historical figure, and the lack of information about him suggests that he is not important enough to have his own article. I'd say mention him in the article about Go, and his father. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's normal for Wikipedia editors (especially those proposing the deletion of an article!) to actually do a Google Books search before proposing the deletion of an article on the grounds that the historical figure described in the article may not exist. I'd say it's clear that this editor did not do this. Please withdraw the nomination, do the research you should have done in the first place, and use that article's Discussion page to propose improvements, in a constructive manner. Badagnani (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply: | Google | Scholar has virtually nothing on him. Ditto | Google Books. What little there is refers to a legend about an emperor inventing Go for his lazy son. The emperor himself is, according to one of the articles, "semi-legendary"--which means that his son's existence would be difficult to discern. Even if Dan Zhu was real, however, he is not notable, since he only appears within the context of his father's invention of Go. Notability is not inherited, and whatever the world needs to know about Dan Zhu can be in the article on his father, and on Go. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I just saw your sources on the talk page. In general, it is better to post such things on the deletion discussion. Many of these seem to be about the myth, and none of them seem to indicate that Dan Zhu was particularly notable. He is a very, very minor mention. Everything about him can be included in the article about his father. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, the Go myth is only a small part of his (legendary) biography. The relevant search should be here instead. The potential exists for it to become a full article. _dk (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could someone who reads Chinese give us a little clarity on what those books seem to be saying about him? TallNapoleon (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Records of the Grand Historian says that when Yao died, his non-hereditary successor Shun fled south and gave the position to Danzhu, however the people's hearts were with Shun instead, so Shun eventually became emperor. This indicates that Danzhu was, at some time, an emperor, if only for a brief period. I believe this is notable enough. _dk (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep emperors are notable, even if semi-legendary, if in standard sources. he is. We are not asked to decide the extent to which he is actually historical.  DGG (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As an emperor he's inherently notable. Being semi or even completely legendary does not affect notability, otherwise we'd have to delete Robin Hood and King Arthur. Edward321 (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.