Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tung-Wang (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 14:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tung-Wang
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although the first AFD result was "keep", that was on the grounds of notability. However if you look at the references given I think you will see that there is no real evidence that he is a historical figure, in fact I believe it is just a recent story floating around the internet. Note that the current references appear to be duplicates, and everything else I found on the web is also identical. Also one current reference is labelled "the lighter side" and the other is a self-published book Juzhong (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   —Juzhong (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A brief examination of the google hits seems to demonstrate notability, but looking deeper, there is nothing I have found that even indicates this is a real person, and not a hoax/joke. Need additional information to show this is a notable person deserving of a Wikipedia article.  Theseeker4 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Last AFD closed two days ago! A spagetti-cooking approach to AfD should not be encouraged, hoax allegation is patently silly. Wily D  15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Looking again at the sources, I fear the nominator may be right, and we may possibly have made an overhasty stupid mistake which is best soon corrected, but I am not sure how to tell. Essentially, we are asked to make a judgement call on whether the story in Adam Genkaku Fisher's book is a pure invention of his, or whether there was such a monk who told such a story (I assume the website reprinted it, but it could have been the other way round). We need help from specialists here. There is no name given in Chinese characters, and I think that possibility has to be searched correctly, which I cannot do. (The name is intrinsically possible, as there are a number of people with that name in Facebook).   But how about internal evidence, though-- was there a Han-hsieh monestary? Is the dating to the 13th year of the Earth Dragon period (898) plausible? -- not that finding t hem demonstrates the truth of this, but not finding them would demonstrate the fictionality.    Cucumbers at least are native to China, butthat's not quite enough. DGG (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. Googling "han hsin" monastery as well as "han shin" monastery (the story is inconsistent) just comes back to the same thing. Likewise "Earth Dragon period". Juzhong (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no substance to the claim that Tung-Wang didn't exist. Difficulty here is to prove that the people named Tung-Wang are really this person. Definitely one book says he's real. Apparently there really was a Tung Wang in Chinese history who was somewhat of a mystic, but tying the two together is difficult (additional). I had a little think on this and have come to the conclusion that there's not enough notability for the page in any case. The existence of Tung-Wang is relatively immaterial compared to the fact that notability has not really been established and therefore this page should be deleted -- Kickstart70 T C 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, that's a self-published book, you are not supposed to count it as a reliable source. Juzhong (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Tung Wang in your second book is Yang Xiuqing (Yang seu Tsing), who was awarded the title "Dong Wang/东王" meaning "East King" (search within the book for "Tung Wang". Juzhong (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete We have no reliable sources at all for anything in this article. Source 1 is a self-published book of Buddhist devotional material. Source 2 is from gnvr.com's Lighter Side column, which also publishes lightbulb jokes. And although I can't see all of the Google Books preview, the text of the two sources appear to be exactly same. That's enough for deletion. I appreciate User:DGG's questions, but they're original research (and trying to check a Tang dynasty date really is a considerable research task). However, to silence the doubters I've searched in Mandarin for cucumber (黄瓜) with monk, Buddhism, and a couple of possible character combinations for Tung-Wang (assuming it's Hanyu Pinyin Dong Wang). There are no references in the early entries, which we'd expect if this was a notable person. We should be embarrassed that this made it through AfD once already.  14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.R.Forrester (talk • contribs)  Sorry, don't know why that didn't sign properly Matt's talk 14:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy procedural close as this article passed AFD with a KEEP decision only a few days ago. Articles must not be renominated in such a short period of time. If the nominator feels the previous AFD was closed prematurely then he/she should lobby for THAT one to be reopened, not start a new one. Otherwise anytime someone doesn't like the outcome of an AFD they might be able to cite this as an example of precedent. 23skidoo (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Opening a new AfD was recommended by the admin who closed the original AfD in this comment, because the reason for deletion had changed. Matt's talk 17:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Stifle&page=&year=&month=-1
 * Delete - I don't care if and how this article managed to survive an AfD two days ago if we can amass sufficient proof that it's bogus. Concerning DGG's questions: There are no Google Scholar references to the monastery. There are no Google Web hits for the monastery unrelated to this very story, either. Using the Chinese astrology and sexagenary cycle articles, one can compute that 898 wasn't a Dragon year at all. That's sufficient proof for me that the book's story is fabricated (if it weren't how did the author come to know of this monastery?). Huon (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like to tung my wang. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the user who opened the first AfD, I'd like to point out that the original AfD's proximity to this one has really no bearing on the case. Keep votes based solely on that really hold no substance and are irrelevant because my reason for AfD was different from this one's. D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of the answers to my questions. The original research prohibition applies to articles--we can and often do engage in a little research in discussing them--how else can we determine if somethings a hoax for example, or if a term is the customary one, or if an asserted town is in fact a settlement not an isolated house, and so forth. DGG (talk) 17:12, 15 November 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.