Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longjia people


 * 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. Consensus is that the topic is notable and that the issues with the article can be solved with editing rather than deletion. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Longjia people

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is created by Special:Contributions/Stevey7788.I guess he should be PRC, so he used many forums as references,like tieba.baidu.com bbs.tianya.cn.The edit history shows that the main editing account is Special:Contributions/Stevey7788.But he has been blocked for using sock puppets, so the page has not been updated for three years. I think if this page is not deleted, someone needs to clean up the non-english and reference. I also noticed Longjia language the main editing account is also Special:Contributions/Stevey7788.These pages all use some APA format,like by the Yi (Zhijin County Almanac 1997:159) or Zhang & Li (1982). This means that the content may have been copied from the original source. And because some don't have ISBN, website, publication information, it is difficult to confirm the reliability.
 * Simplify the reason for deletion, the page has some problems, and the main editor account has disappeared.
 * It takes a lot of time and energy to eliminate those problems, which seems to be unworthy for us. Rastinition (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What exactly are the problems with the article? If you've checked the sources and found out there has been an instance of a copyright violation (rather than merely supposing there could have been one) then the offending text can be removed. However, I'd be surprised if there were any: the article has relatively little text, but a large list of sources, and the creator was not known for copyvios. Or is the problem reliability? Yes, 3 of the 15 refs are to what appear like unreliable websites. If you have reasons to believe that the article content they support is dubious, you can challenge it or remove it outright. But that still leaves 12 other sources. Three of them are English books: there is full bibliographic information provided (except for the ISBN of two of them), and they all look reliable. The rest are in Chinese. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that: sources don't have to be in English. Yes, the bibliographic information is more telegraphic, showing the title, year and pages, but no publisher. However, these are all county almanacs or district gazetteers, so I presume they should be familiar to the people who edit China-related articles. Also, there's no requirement for an article to only give the English names of entities; providing the Chinese names of places is actually helpful when these places don't (yet) have articles on Wikipedia.  Regardless, cleanup – even if we agreed it was necessary – is no reason to delete an article. The topic is clearly notable. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * keep I don't see any problems with it that can't be fixed with some attention. The lists of place names with Chinese could be cleaned up and made clearer. Some of the sources have problems but it's got enough good published sources that it's easily notable. I can't check those sources myself, but being unable to check sources is never a reason to delete.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:3D2F:78A6:C92C:5027 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for clean-up - that's what clean-up tags are for! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. FWIW, I consider User:Stevey7788 a great net positive contributor to the coverage of languages and peoples of Mainland SE Asia & China (in spite of our occasional disagreements about the use of primary sources and blogs of subject-matter experts); the fact that he got blocked for some silly reason (*not* for sockpuppetry!) is irrelevant here. –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2021 (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.