Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Precious Star


 * 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. Aervanath (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Precious Star

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

Article has very little content or context; a Google search reveals little information about the Order. Further, the entirety of its contents are unsourced. Positronic (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No ghits that don't appear to have taken their content from this article. No books in google books.  No scholarly articles in google scholar.  JulesH (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm finding no evidence that the "order of the whatever" pattern for naming awards was used in China, or in fact any other part of the far east, during this period. I think this is almost certainly a hoax, and if so, is well-deserving of a mention on User:Shii/Hoaxes. JulesH (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the hoax template to the page. Positronic (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

weak keep it's not true that it hasn't been mentioned in WP:RS- a normal google search cannot be relied upon as it's only what people on internets want to write about. See the 70 hits in published books, including at least two encyclopedias. At lest some are for this award, I'm going out now, but here's one Sticky Parkin 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep. I don't don't know how JulesH managed to miss those Google Books hits. It's a pity that Google only displays snippets in most cases, but there seems to be substantial coverage here, which indicates that this was later known as the Order of the Imperial Dragon, and this book has the order name as a section heading, so it would appear to amount to substantial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Sticky Parkin and Phil Bridger. Sufficient RS's at gbooks, clearly not a hoax.John Z (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: While the order exists, the article does not (as yet) have any reliable sources nor any evidence that this award is notable. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It obviously IS notable, so whether it is currently verified as such in the article is immaterial.  Just because an article is unencyclopedically written does not mean it  should be deleted.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Delete: unless it gets some expansion and references added, it fails the minimum criteria to be kept as an encyclopedic article. Maybe is has some notability, but the article must assert that notability. Should it be deleted, it would hardly be a big loss: it's only a single sentance and stub template.  bahamut0013  words deeds   16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:N, WP:V.  I've added some detail and references.  There are many more sources available, including sources that discuss historical individuals who were decorated with the award. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2009 (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.