Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yan Silu


 * 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 no consensus. valid opinions on both sides regarding depth of the sources Cunard identified Star   Mississippi  18:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yan Silu

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Currently sourced with a single, unreliable source. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability. Would have draftified, but this editor has an issue with draftification, so here we are. Without better sourcing, which I can't find, does not appear to meet GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify: Per nom. Perhaps an actual discussion resulting in draftification might change their mind, seems like the most logical choice for an article with nowhere near enough sourcing. — &#123;{u&#124; Bsoyka }&#125;  talk 18:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese version has only one source as well. No help from there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are the sources I added to the article:    </li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yan Silu to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC) </li></ul> Relisting comment: For further analysis of 's sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

*Strong Keep Amazing unresearched voters and nominator ! Minister of the royal court automatically passes WP:NPOL. How much do you need? VocalIndia (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Indefinite block for personal attacks.  scope_creep Talk  15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on User:Cunard's sources. Atchom (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of the refs provided by Cunard are in-depth about this subject.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 22:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So how you know? you can read Chinese? pls someone report onel5969 for WP:IDONTLIKE case on historical figures. Court minister is auto notable on Wikipedia and higher than member of parliament. Minister is not a joke. He living 400 years ago that is quite a lot of detail including a multi-page biography that someone wrote about him. More than sufficient for a historical figure. The article is already improved by . VocalIndia (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - no I don't speak or read Chinese. However, one of my business partners was born and grew up in Shanghai and is quite fluent.  I had him take a look at the sources, which is why it took me so long to respond to Cunard's post.  Nothing but brief mentions. And the personal attacks are wearing thin.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 20:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Depth is contextual. Classical Chinese is a notoriously terse form of verbal expression and that has to factor in. Atchom (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment When I come back this afternoon, I will translate them. I have a intern in my office who can speak and read this. Classical Chinese sources may be notoriously terse, but that isn't a substitute for depth or significant coverage.    scope_creep Talk  09:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The dude is not into today. He has been shirking, so tommorrow lunch time, if we can keep it open until then please.   scope_creep Talk  15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I would give significant leeway to historical figures as online sourcing might not be the best especially as we are mainly sourcing through a website that is banned in China. I can see that the online sourcing is already enough to write a Start-level article about him which is enough in my opinion. Jumpytoo Talk 17:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.