Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dương Dynasty (An Nam)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dương Dynasty (An Nam)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original contributor to the article has been banned for creating hoaxes and adding untrue information to articles. This article is plausibly based, with Dương Tam Kha being a single king during a short period of the purported 'dynasty'.

Almost all of the sources are either unlinked or in foreign language, which is a big red flag given the contributing editor's history. There are a couple of sources that are not reliable sources, but do mention it as a dynasty:[1] [2], but they are not what could be considered 'reliable' for historical verification.

Seems like a big red flag that the editor has to resort to sources such as tea recipies and other sources that don't mention the subject at all.

Much of the content of the article is unverifiable with the sources given such as: "Although attacked by the Tang Dynasty more than once, Dương Dynasty always pushed back in revolt against the Tang Dynasty, and the heroes come from around the An Nam for retain they homeland during massive number of wars." which has three refs that I can't check (and again given the contributing user's history, is a massive red flag)

It also appears that the blocked user has been editing the article under two different IPs recently (Including restoring the article from a redirect with different content, which possibly makes this article G5able, but this was contested). If this article is restored as a redirect, I request that it is protected.

I suggest that we TNT this submission with no prejudice for recreating an article if someone decides to recreate it with real sources (if this period is really considered a 'dynasty' by reliable sources, which I am still not convinced of--See the talk page where others have raised concerns). Pinging talk page contributors: DHN and In ictu oculi. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - the article was created by ADHZ07111989, who was banned for repeatedly writing hoax, "alternative history" articles glorifying the Yang/Dương surname. I turned it into a redirect years ago as there's nothing useful or verifiable, but it was recently restored by an IP who's almost certainly a sock of ADHZ07111989 [3]. Time to take out the garbage. -Zanhe (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Semi blank article and fill with actual sources~~ on the semi-legendary kingdom: such as Thanh Hóa, thế và lực mới trong thế kỷ XXI -Viết Luân Chu, ‎Công ty cổ phần thông tin kinh tế đối ngoại - 2003 Page 26 "Kien So and Phu Lac (according to Dao Duy Anh. Kien So and Phu Lac- merged together to make Sung Binh at the end of Duong Dynasty), and Thuong Lac. Tung Nguyen. Quan Minh. 3. In the period of Tuy and Duong Dynasties King Tuy ." There is a problem here as Vietnamese sources over egg the historicity of "dynasties" before the 1000 years of Chinese dominance, while Chinese sources naturally deny any Vietnamese state before China's dominance. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: this purported dynasty is not one of the legendary kingdoms before Chinese domination. It's supposed to have existed between 603 to 906, during the Tang dynasty rule of Annam, and that is pure nonsense. -Zanhe (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some funny things in Vietnamese history books (as in Chinese ones) but looking at the sources Dương does seem to simply be a Vietnamese typo for Tang. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Mentioned in plenty of scholarly sources. Regardless of who created the article, the encyclopedic legitimacy of the topic is clear.~~ 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Tang dynasty, which ruled Annam/Northern Vietnam, is called Đường in Vietnamese, and that's the one that tends to come up in Google searches. -Zanhe (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT or stick {{Cleanup rewrite}} and strip back to verifiable facts. Dysklyver 13:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here is not "verifiable facts", but verifiable scholarly relevance, ~~which is amply documented~~. Atlantis is highly notable, regardless of whether it ever existed. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that this article is not based on scholarly sources, nor is the content verifiable via scholarly evidence, so either way we need to TNT the content. Given the editor's history of hoaxing, removing the edit history from this article is probably a good idea (I don't often invoke WP:TNT, but in this case I find it appropriate). If someone wants to create a new article using scholarly sources and verifiable information, that will be totally OK. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument for keeping this article based on the fact that Atlantis has its own article is a textbook example of WP:OSE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@84.73.134.206: The Duong dynasty in the Google books results is actually the Tang dynasty and has nothing to do with this article. -Zanhe (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if this article isn't a hoax created by a banned user, this article is way too short to actually be a notable subject to write about. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or TNT this "article" with no prejudice for recreating an article with proper and confirmed WP:RS citations. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I deleted a bunch of comments, some more rational than others, from a now-blocked disruptor; I do not wish for those comments to poison the well of discussion from which we all drink in brother- and sisterhood. If you are interested, you can check the history, but none of them involve the kinds of things what will make an administrator or participant change their minds. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is good reason to believe this is largely a hoax and, unless I'm misreading, no reliable sources that really say otherwise. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.