Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gongchen Tower


 * 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. As reflected by concensus, a 14th century national monument is unquestionably notable Philg88 ♦talk 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Gongchen Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. The only coverage I see is about the fire basically. Other coverage is only passing mention. Note that I would withdraw this AfD should it be found that it is covered in great detail in travel books, which I wouldn't have access to. Google Books doesn't return much either. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Variant spellings may cause variant search results.  A GBooks search for  turned up a few travel guide hits that do identify the tower as a local landmark, such as  ("the town's central point is the unmistakeable Gongchan Lou (拱长楼)");  ("the only thing you need to find is Gongchen Lou . . . a huge old gate tower marking the centre of town"); . If more detailed content about the historic city existed on English Wikipedia (compare zh:巍山古城, Google translation here), the news about the destroyed tower might be best included there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 拱长楼 is wrong. It should be 拱辰楼. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This must be notable. Did we search "拱辰楼"? The news is the fire, but the article is about the tower, which is old and surely notable. Should the whole city gate at Weishan Yi and Hui Autonomous County be the article, with the tower as a section? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Buildings dating from the 14th century are invariably notable. I don't know anything about China's historic building listing, but in Western countries this would undoubtedly have the highest listing, which would pretty much guarantee it an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * merge to Weishan Yi and Hui Autonomous County. Both at the moment are stubs consisting of only a couple of sentences. Combining them would make a much more useful and interesting article, still short, which would better server readers. The information about the gate should probably be added to the town/county article anyway as it's the only photo there and probably its main notable feature. If in the future the resulting article grows too long then it could be split again, but now I think a single article makes most sense.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't believe for a second that a 14th Century cultural landmark doesn't have a great amount native language coverage spanning centuries. Even that one source the nom speaks of says its listed as a Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level ("key cultural protection site"), similar to a building in the US being listed with the National Register of Historic Places.  Older Chinese sources, particularly those that are pre-internet, are very hard to recognize to us English speakers.  No need for systemic bias.--Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Those of you saying it is "definitely notable" had better actually provide some sources of that kind, the burden is on you to show their definitive existence. Many 14th-century objects in China that I've personally seen myself are usually not worthy of Wikipedia articles, particularly small features.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible for sources not to exist if it is listed as a Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level as to be listed as such would require very in-depth government reports on history and analysis of cultural impact. This isn't an "object" but a major 14th Century building. Whatever other articles of Chinese "objects" have nothing to do with the notability of this building, and has nothing to do with the national origin of a topic.  WP:GNG makes it very clear that sources do not have to be online nor in English. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does, but until and unless you can produce said sources it doesn't matter. I've been to various Chinese locations of such significance that don't deserve articles (the research by the government alone would not be independent). Also not every item on the National Register of Historic Places has a Wikipedia article or is eligible for one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG only requires the existence of coverage, not that they be "produced" or in the article and barring serious BLP violations per WP:AFD, articles are not to deleted simply because source are not in the article. As for the NRHP, actually, by the nature of the HRHP every one is eligible for one.  That there are no articles of many means there's a lot more work to do.  Even I created one - Old Shelby County Courthouse.  --Oakshade (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially, I need concrete evidence that said coverage is highly significant. If the only source is a single government study on its history, then it doesn't meet GNG, for example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states that "reports by government agencies" are considered reliable sources per that guideline. Even those "fire" articles you speak of go into detail of its history so that's no even the only source currently demonstrated in this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline requires multiple sources, which must be independent; for example when writing an article on a government, its own publications are usually not generally enough to establish notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't think this was necessary to write, but A Chinese heritage agency source only wouldn't be independent if it was written about the Chinese government. In this case, it is not.  The Chinese government is separate from the Gongchen Tower.  Just becaue a building is in China doesn't mean it's part of the Chinese government. --Oakshade (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding AfD. You don't need anything since you don't decide whether the article is to be deleted or not! Also note that government documents are only non-independent when describing the government itself or one of its agencies - this is not relevant to historic monuments. The suggestion that, say, English Heritage research into an English building wasn't independent because it's a government agency would be laughable. And yes, every building on the National Register of Historic Places is eligible for an article; this is long established. The fact not every such building has an article yet is utterly and completely irrelevant. Since this was a site with the highest national monument status, held by only 4,295 structures (not a lot for a country the size of China - about twice that number of buildings in the much, much smaller England are Grade I listed, for example), it is clearly notable whether there are multitudinous sources or not. This falls into line with our normal conventions for articles on historic monuments, where the highest level of national protection (e.g. NRHP in the USA, Grade I listing in England, MH in France) is generally considered sufficient for an article, despite a lack of sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is not called Gongchen Tower fire. The article is about the tower, not the fire. So, NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The fire media articles talk about the tower itself, and there are plenty of those media articles. Plus, govt, book, and Chinese language sources. The thing passes GNG easily, very easily. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added more info to the article from the Compendium of Chinese Archaeology. Unfortunately only a snippet view is available on Google books, but the notability of this tower should be beyond any reasonable doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Now this much much better. Negebaur Forlan Brusadin (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (speedy if possible) The building is listed at zh:全国重点文物保护单位, which is the Chinese equivalent of NRHP. So it clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The original nomination was reasonable as a "No News" stub, but with the recent expansion it is clearly notable.ch (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (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.