Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuan Kay-shan


 * 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 keep given a total lack of delete preferences. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh  01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuan Kay-shan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article itself asserts non-notability. He never opened a school, and taught only one student who then taught many people. The majority of the article is different ways to transcribe his name. RogueNinja talk  16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Against Deletion - As stated during the original objection, yes the article could certainly use an expansion of content. However, your opening reasons don't make a lot of sense.  You're describing just about everyone in the wing chun family tree until modern times.  One to a handful of students, and no school.  That's traditionally how it was done in Chinese arts, public schools with lots of students were not that common, and in this art didn't appear until Yip Man's time - before that, all training was private.  Likewise, Yuen Kay San is a well known historical figure and branch of the art.  By your supposed qualification, no historical figure in the family tree should have their own article here - including the mythical founder of this art, Yim Wing Chun (who had one student and no school).  It seems that's your "thing" here, you mainly just go around nominating articles for deletion, but don't seem that familiar with the subject matter itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe none of them should have articles then. The founder?  Sure, he actually did something notable - he founded a notable martial art.  But random people who simply passed down the art?  How are they notable? Anyway, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS  RogueNinja talk  17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment She is the mythical founder of the art (modern historical research denotes a different origin) - this is what I was referring to about familiarity with the subject or lack thereof. Likewise with regards to the other people, who are not seen as "just random people who passed on the art".  Nothing is random about passing on Chinese martial arts during that time, and you're equating a history and tradition to today's values of walking in to a commercial school, plopping down some cash, and becoming part of a "lineage".  Likewise, nobody was stating "well these people have articles so this one should" per your attempt to throw in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and as a longstanding editor well familiar with the processes here I resent that implication.  It was stating that by your qualifications and interpretations, nobody historical or notable would qualify for an article here, except for Yip Man.   Likewise it was stated to predict you'd probably move on to the others as well, as that's your thing here, and lo and behold there you go suggesting it.  If the situation was different, and any of these people were not historical figures, but modern no-name people who made up their own lineage/school/etc. and wanted an article on here, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you on the notability issue (and I'd probably throw in WP:ADVERTISING for good measure).  Your interpretations on notability though are just that - your interpretations.  And I suggest at this point to allow this process to do what its intended to do - generate consensus for one direction or another.  Other people actually familiar with the subject matter will weigh in. In the mean time, later tonight (I have to head out the door) I'll flesh out the article with more content, references, etc. so at least that issue is out of the way.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Really it looks like a case where all these master's should be merged together into a 'history of' article rather than have their own pages each. That would seem much more suitable. Derekloffin (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like this? RogueNinja talk  02:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is when a historical figure/master represents a distinct branch beyond just a succession in lineage. I could see that with some of the other important historical figures (such as merging them in to an article covering important past figures), but not when you have a key figure that also doubles as a specific branch of the art.  Yuan Kay San represents that, Yip Man represents that, there are several others as well. And even then, if a merge with appropriate redirects is called for, that's a far cry from nuking entire articles with AFD's and would have been better served with a simple proposal for a merger on an articles discussion page.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Shum Lung. JJL (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect Either to Shum Lung, or to an article on the branch as a whole, the exact name I'm not sure of. Something needs to be there, even if it's a redirect to Branches of Wing Chun. It needs expansion before its worth keeping it as an indipendent article. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Nate1481(t/c) 09:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You do both know that shum lung is about to be deleted, right?  RogueNinja talk  09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why i said merge possibly into Branches of Wing Chun...--Nate1481(t/c) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge & Redirect - to 'YKS branch wing chun' - I'm also surprised at the existance of WP:Hypocracy. Regardless of that, Marty's reasoning is completely sound. Kung Fu history is all Mr Miyagi/Danielsan, Obi-Wan/Luke, so you shouldn't cull articles based on the direct number of students.  Regardless of all of that, unless there is more content than "joe (pronounced JOE) taught bob (prounced BOB). bob taught fred (pronounced FRED). Fred taught lots", then the article is redundant. I suspect that the obscurity of the subject means that there is little more known about YKS. I also know that if anyone would know, it would be Marty, and the fact that he hasn't added any more convinces me that the article isn't getting much bigger. Rpf (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, I just haven't gotten around to it.  There's a number of Chinese published references on him from the 70's and 80's that were translated (from New Martial Hero magazine) I was going to add.  There's also coverage of that branch in Rene Ritchie's book Yuen Kay San Wing chun Kuen.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%AE%E5%A5%87%E5%B1%B1
 * Against Deletion - Yuan Kay-shan is a notable person in the Chinese martial arts community. Information about him has not been translated or make available in English - that is why the article remains a stub. There is enough information within the Chinese literature to substain a page about Yuan. If someone like to translate the following links:

http://www.21wulin.com/wulin/chuantong/1397.html

It will provide more information on Yuan.

In general, if a person is notable, they should have their own page. This will advance our goal for Wikipedia - to ensure that quality information is available to those that are interested. --Ottawakungfu (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Ok, as previously promised, I went in and rewrote the article providing a lot more content in the process. Added a number of references as well. I'll do the same with Shum Lung this weekend.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Against Deletion - I guess I was the original creator of the page. When I created it, it was a part of a series that linked together to form a "family tree" to show the wing chun history.  If one of the nodes were deleted, the usefulness of the whole tree diminishes.  It is a chicken and egg problem, by deleting each node individually, you can gradually justify the deletion of the whole tree later. You can kill a big structure by attacking its weakest parts.  I put up the tree years ago, trying to establish a framework.  If no one else was able to fill in the framework and preserve the tree or individual node of the tree, I have no ability to do anything more.  I guess the best I can do is to cast a no vote and to emphasize the original intention of this article.  Kowloonese (talk) 17:26, 6 April 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.