Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Chen, Hubei
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 with no prejudice against recreation if the verifiability issue has been resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wang Chen, Hubei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is absolutely no assertion as to why this village is considered notable. While places generally will have some notability, nothing is shown here, and I can find none myself. Delete. (If kept, should be moved to Wangchen, HubeiWangchen (no disambiguation necessary) per WP:NC-ZH (that no spacing is required between pinyinized Chinese characters when describing a single entity).) --Nlu (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I generally feel all villages are notable, but this one may fail WP:V. I can find lots of people named Wang Chen, but no evidence that a place of that name exists. Change to keep if a reliable source can be found. Pburka (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep given the evidence that the village did exist. Pburka (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I'm not positive on this. It seems according to googlemaps, "中国湖北省武汉市江夏区汪陈" means Wangchen, Wuhan, Hubei, China. I've even managed to get directions from Wantchen to Hubei. [1]--Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oakshade, Google Maps, and for that matter Google Earth, is not always right. There is no Wangchen Village (汪陈村) in Jiangxia District as Google Maps claimed; see this list of all administrative divisions in the district.
- Comment: This village (汪陈村) once existed but was merged into some other villages between 2002 and 2005. See the 2002 and 2005 lists of administrative divisions within Tianmen City. As I have shown you that this particular settlement no longer exists as a separate entity, we would have to insert the wording "Wangchen was merged into _ Village(s)". However, CCP decisions regarding administrative merges/upgrades must be sourced. Unless there is sufficient sourcing (which I doubt exists) indicating the merging, this should not be its own article. Lastly, villages usually have at most several hundred people, which would be equivalent to a portion of a Western-style suburban neighbourhood. So, should WP have articles on suburban residential divisions? No, and likewise, villages should not unless they are spread out wide and far in a particular region. Save for notable villages, this sets a dangerous precedent here on WP in terms of coverage. We don't have articles on many of towns in China, and should focus on them first before dealing with the hundreds of thousands of villages. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it was once an independent village and now merged with several others, that actually increases the case for inclusion. It's long standing practice and consensus that all population centers no matter what size are notable. Lachine, Quebec was once its own city, but its now part of Montreal but that doesn't mean Lachine is magically non-notable. If it was a village, as you even stated, then most likely Chinese language sources exist. If a similar size village in the United States was up for deletion with English sources easily found, this wouldn't be up for discussion. Don't want to look like we're practicing systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not at all trying to practise systemic bias...I am of Chinese blood. What I meant by my wording for the sourcing issue was that the CCP, given its size, would probably not care to report on village mergers, which likely occur all the time, as opposed to merging of districts or counties. At most what I could find was a source mentioning that construction of Wangchen occurred for a while in 2009 ("如汪陈村，4月份动工，6月份竣工"), but nothing about merging, which was probably enacted 2003, 2004 or 2005. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it was once an independent village and now merged with several others, that actually increases the case for inclusion. It's long standing practice and consensus that all population centers no matter what size are notable. Lachine, Quebec was once its own city, but its now part of Montreal but that doesn't mean Lachine is magically non-notable. If it was a village, as you even stated, then most likely Chinese language sources exist. If a similar size village in the United States was up for deletion with English sources easily found, this wouldn't be up for discussion. Don't want to look like we're practicing systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per our standard practice of keeping articles on villages anywhere in the world that are verified to have existed. In reply to HXL49, deleting this will not magically cause the articles that we should have on larger towns in China to write themselves - Wikipedia is not a zero sum game. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not at all attempting to suggest articles will "magically" write themselves, and I would still prefer that specific mergers are mentioned. Land does not simply disappear. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to your comment, "we don't have articles on many of towns in China, and should focus on them first before dealing with the hundreds of thousands of villages". A volunteer happens to have contributed an article on a (former?) village rather than a town. Deleting that article will do nothing to help anyone focus on writing the articles about towns that you rightly say are lacking. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, the standard I touched upon earlier still applies. articles on villages really should identify what is notable other than the fact that X village is located in some location. I think of WP:INFO here. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to your comment, "we don't have articles on many of towns in China, and should focus on them first before dealing with the hundreds of thousands of villages". A volunteer happens to have contributed an article on a (former?) village rather than a town. Deleting that article will do nothing to help anyone focus on writing the articles about towns that you rightly say are lacking. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not at all attempting to suggest articles will "magically" write themselves, and I would still prefer that specific mergers are mentioned. Land does not simply disappear. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability. Stealthysis (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Lack of apparent notability. Could hardly call a (designated) village of at most several hundred inhabitants notable, especially when comparing it to, say, an equivalent-sized suburban residential neighbourhood, many of which have no articles precisely due to the notability issue. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Our guidelines are that any populated place is notable. The problem here is that this place does not seem to be identifiable. If this was a geopolitical area, where is a government map? Unscintillating (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm all for geographic places, but there has to be some notability. There are about 370 mentions of "Wang Chen" in the English Wikipedia and except for this article and the disambiguation page, they all refer to people. Maybe if there was a Wade-Giles spelling some historical mention could be found, but it seems a long shot. Article seems a pretty easy delete. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2011 (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.