Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zheng-Xian


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Zheng-Xian

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Probable hoax. I can't find any trace of the town, the privatised shoe factory, or the disaster mentioned in the origins section. Plus, "notable only for its relative obscurity" seems a dead give-away. Danger (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * DELETE unless sources can be found - from WP:Notability (geography), "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable." No sources are cited which might help us to verity that this place exists and/or is otherwise notable. The fact that it doesn't say which province its in tells me it might be made up. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a legally recognized place, I would expect to find census data or some sort of government source when searching, especially for a relatively large settlement like this. But, nada. --Danger (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is no such place according to all searches I have made. There are several towns or cities starting with the name, Zheng-Xian Lu, Zheng-Xian Yu etc. but this one is not identifiable from any searches of the internet. Zhengxian also seems to be a previous name of Zhengzhou which has a population of around 2 million. If it is a real place then it should have an article. Unfortunately this name, from the details given, does not seem to be a correct Anglicisation of the original name as it is not coming up in any searches in any areas (book, internet, google.maps, google earth, flickr etc.). THe populations of the cities starting with this name are also too big. It could well be a hoax, incorrect translation, lacking part of its name, or no longer exist. Nonetheless the issue is not notability but existence. If a place exists there will undoubtedly be a mention of it on at least one page of the internet or an encyclopaedia. This one does not exist. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pinyin does not put dashes in the middle of placenames, so the proper English spelling would probably be "Zhengxian". Unless it were a county; however, 8,000 is far too small for a county population --- and anyway you can get a list of all the counties in China here, and there is none which would be spelled "Zheng" in Roman letters. The population size is roughly in line for it to be a township (xiang), in which case "Zheng-Xian" it might be a misspelling of "Zheng Xiang", or it might be the name of a xiang called "Zhengxian". But far more likely is that this article is a hoax. cab (call) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment if anyone would really like to verify this town's existence, you can try looking for any place called "Zheng" or "Zhengxiang" in the Chinese Wikipedia's lists of township-level and above administrative divisions, see zh:Category:中华人民共和国行政区划列表. There's only about 40,000 of them. I for one will not bother. In my opinion this is definitely a WP:HOAX or other breaching experiment; there is no way a good-faith author could unintentionally write an article this vaguely. "Town in provincial China" is the real kicker ... no one who was actually trying to convey information would forget to mention what actual province this alleged town is located, let alone fail to provide any other single term (factory name, name of the local labour activist, etc.) which could be useful as a search key. Compare with some real unsourced stubs written by genuine new editors about their native places: . Cheers, cab (call) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (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.