Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Shaolin Temple of Fu Qing (Ruins)


 * 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 redirect to Southern Shaolin Monastery. Consensus is that if this is to be covered, it should be in a subsection of that article.  Sandstein  07:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Southern Shaolin Temple of Fu Qing (Ruins)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POV fork of Southern Shaolin Monastery. States as fact that the ruins of this have been veriified although our articles says about this supposed structure " whose existence and location are both disputed". No sources. Of the three external links, the first seems some sort of social network or Wikipedia like page, the 2nd doesn't discuss ruins of a monastery but of a hospital, while the third is a forum. Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, those of you guys outside of China are not easily access to websites of China (filtering or whatever) and the speed of accessing websites of China are extremely slow, however if you are in China right now there are so many documentaries of "The discovery of Southern Shaolin Ruins" for you to watch in youku.com, tudou.com, etc plus tons of websites regarding it. Same thing, come over to China and stay a few days, you will find Google, facebook, youtube, etc are so difficult to access. The link that i provided has pictures of the Ruins but the website is not easy to get in for those outside of China. Anyway try look at this link written in Chinese "在1993年6且4日，在福清市东张镇少林自然村，找到了少林寺遗址. 又经福建省、福州市联合考古队对遗址进行考古发掘，出土大量珍贵文物，诸如遗址中发现“少林院”、“少林”等石刻铭文，以及石桥、石盂、石槽、石碾(药臼)、石碑、石础、石舂臼、石磨、石香炉、瓷器、钱币、铜镜，还有和尚墓塔等上千件文物，不胜枚举使少林寺遗址得到科学的验证. 这一争论多年的历史悬案，终于有了圆满的答案. 福清发现的少林寺遗址，史册记载之多，遗址规模之宏伟，遗迹结构之完整，遗物分布之广泛丰富，以及所显示的文化内涵与河南嵩山少林寺之相似，在福建都是仅见的. 特别是经过省、市考古队对遗址进行考古发掘，无论在史证和物证两方面，与史籍记载相符的福建少林寺(史称南少林寺). 　这个重大成果已得到各界专家肯定. 特别是嵩山少林寺三十三代法师、中国国际友好联络会理事、嵩山少林寺武术学校校长释永寿听说后，特地率团到福清考察南少林寺遗址，经过七天的考察研究，他向外界郑重宣布，福清南少林寺的寺址无可置疑是名副其实的南少林寺遗址. 因此，我们有理由认为，中国南北两个少林寺是历史的事实，我们也有理由认为南少林寺在福清. 一九九四年十一月，福建省宗教局和福州市政府先后批准福清市在遗址上重建南少林寺，福清市各界人士及海外华侨共集资5000万元人民币用于重建南少林寺　"

My very rough translation goes like this "in 1993, the ruins of southern shaolin has been discovered through the archeological team of Fujian state with lots of artifacts unearthed and finally the existence of southern shaolin has a perfect answer especially after the verification of 7 days by Headmaster Shi YongShou and his team coming from the Shaolin Monastery of Song Mountain ...."

http://www.chinansls.com/read.asp?id=87 User778326198 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese version of Southern Shaolin Temple of Fu Qing (Ruins) is already up, so what is wrong for the English version? btw, I am still very new to editing Wikipedia... User778326198 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Guys, try watch videos from websites of China, this is one of the documentaries of Southern Shaolin Temple of Fu Qing (Ruins) 追踪南少林 http://www.tudou.com/listplay/st1Fnb2pP-o/LKZcLpWIMVY.html http://www.cntv.cn/program/tsfx/20070625/107373.shtmlUser778326198 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I understand it there are at least three towns that have ruins claimed to be the fabled Southern Shaolin Temple in additon to Fu Quiq including Quanzhou and Putian. It is far from definative and again this sounds like something that should be mentioned in the Southern Shaolin Temple article not stand alone.  If something exists in one wiki version does not mean it should exist in another.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete As above. No reliable source links those particular ruins to a disputed temple.  I could see the information being added as a subsection of Southern Shaolin Temple with the appropriate qualifications (i.e.. ruins found here have been claimed to be...) but really this is an attempt to shoe horn history.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge (perhaps expressing skepticism) to Southern Shaolin Monastery. The issue seems to be that the monastery has been regarded as almost mythical, a claim that it has been discovered and partly excavated would seem to be notable.  I cannot tell whether we have WP:RS, as I do not read Chinese.  However an archaeological excavation of 6500 sq m in 7 days is hardly credible, unless it was in fact bulldozed.  Similarly the views of a headteacher will hardly be those of an archaeological expert.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it as the headmaster visited the site (previously excavated) for 7 days.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 06:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still say merge. This is the case of an unknown temple and an archaeological site which is claimed to be the lost temple.  They are obviously something that should be in separate parts of the same article.  An archaewologcal excavation of an area as big as 65m x 100m, which produced significant results is itslef likely to be notable.  However, the headmaster's visit is probably NN and what he wrote will not be the best source.  Peterkingiron (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:00, 16 July 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.