Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Xiaojun (tai chi)


 * 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. The support of an IP editor did not after over two weeks yield any additional evidence of significant coverage, so I am going to action the consensus of the debate. KaisaL (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wang Xiaojun (tai chi)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Martial artist that fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. There is no claim of notability except for claiming that after 9 years of study he is a leading proponent of his art. Being a proponent is not the same as being an expert and I've never known any Chinese martial artists to be considered one of the best in such a short period of time. There's a lack of significant independent coverage except for saying he's a teacher and gives lectures, which most martial artists do and doesn't make him notable.Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Based on the article's lack of sources, he doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. The real problem was when I searched on his name.  It was a bit tricky, given there are professors and a PLA general with the same name, but when I focused on tai chi I did not see the significant and independent coverage needed to meet the GNG.  Of course there may be sources in Chinese, but that's beyond my language skills. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article says "Wang Xiaojun is practicing Taiji Quan and Shaolin Kungfu from 9 years", not "for 9 years", i.e. from the age of nine, for nearly 40 years. This interpretation is supported by the source cited in the article, which says "from the age of six, under his father's guidance", but that's not a contradiction because it may well be that he started formal training at the age of nine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you point to some significant independent coverage of him? I'll admit I'm somewhat handicapped by the fact my firewalls block out Chinese websites. 00:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A search for Chinese sources will only return some coverage of someone else with a same name.--Antigng (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2016 (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.