Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yan Jia Jun


 * 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.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yan Jia Jun

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete unsourced one-line bios of wife & husband - she a princess of Wei born in 23 AD - checking our articles about Wei, this state didn't exist from the 200BCs to 200ADs, so this may be a hoax. Anyone more familiar with Chinese history should either add content and sources to these or confirm whether they are hoaxes.
 * I am also nominating:


 * Carlossuarez46 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete both, per A1. --Blanchardb 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment After 3 days, the originator had plenty of time to expand these articles into valid stubs. --Blanchardb 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources turn up (in which case, leave a note on my talk page). This is a tough one, since if these people were important historical figures, they might have virtually no footprint on the web -- just in books and old journals. The same editor also authored edited a third, much longer and also unreferenced article, Han Xin (disambiguated from another article we have titled Han Xin (Prince of Han)). Perhaps the article's creator has something s/he was working from in writing the article. I left them the standard AfD notification plus a comment. Here are the results of searches I did:
 * Google web:
 * "Yan Jia Jun"+Wei: 11 results, none relevant
 * "Han Ruo Xian" Wei: only Wikipedia
 * Google Scholar:
 * "Yan Jia Jun"+Wei: 3 results, none relevant
 * "Han Ruo Xian" Wei": nothing
 * I disagree with speedy deleting for now.-- A. B. (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ma produce thousands of hits. Moheroy 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the lists of China-related deletions and History-related deletions.  — A. B. (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think editors need to be careful with Chinese topics because of different romanization schemes, for example: "Yan Jia Jun" 顏迦珺 can also be rendered as "Yen Chia-hsun" and Han Ruo Xian can be "Han Jo-hsien." Especially for figures from traditional China, googling under the pinyin transliteration may find almost nothing while another system, esp. Wade-Giles
 * Comment: The Han Xin article has been around for three years with multiple editors, which makes me inclined to believe these two articles about relatives are not hoaxes. -- A. B. (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (Changed my vote, see comment below) I can't find anything right now, but being a Princess of Wei in AD 23 has nothing to do with the Kingdom of Wei (Cao Wei) in the three Kingdoms period.  Wei was a domain in the Han dynasty, which had "princesses"  so it is reasonable that this woman could exist.  In addition her dates put her in the generation immediatly following the restoration of the dynasty which was very turbulent, so it is not unlikely that a woman of this period might be in the histories.  I don't have a copy of the Han history available right now, but so far this entry is passing the smell test.  I think deletion is overly hasty.  English language sources on this sort of thing are really terrible and ggogling figures like this is not very reliable.  Moheroy 10:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article for the "father" Han Xin is for the famous general from the founding of Han. The son "Han Ruo Xian"  韓若賢 is listed in the Han Xin article as a general of Wei under Cao Cao, this is impossible as their is a many century gap.  This Han Ruo Xian may exist as might his wife "Yan Jia Jun" 顏迦珺, but these articles are now useless with this clearly incorrect data.  If they need new articles in the future they can be created fresh then.  The new Classical Chinese Wiki will be a good impetus and start at that timeMoheroy 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now (unless adequately expanded before debate closes), but without prejudice to recreation. This is too brief to be worth keeping.  Peterkingiron 19:19, 11 November 2007 (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.