Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Toghtua Bukha

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Toghtua Bukha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, China, and Korea. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect per Cocobb8. Cannot find any sources on GBooks, Google (except for WP mirror content), Archive.org, or anywhere else that turns up any result at all for any of the romanization options given or Hangul/Hanja script provided. I doubt it's a WP:HOAX, but I think we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found 20 years since this article was created. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I removed the PROD after finding plenty of sources on this individual especially in Korean. This is most likely due to the various different spellings of his name. Here in this Korean translation of the Goryeosa [1] published by the National Institute of Korean History he is listed as both "독타불화" and "톡타부카". Individual has Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article [2] as well as a Doosan Encyclopedia article [3] both listed as "왕독타불화". He also appears in Empire's Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols by David M. Robinson as "Toqto'a-Buqa" as well as in Korea and the Fall of the Mongol Empire also by Robinson. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CountHacker (talk · contribs), the link for the "Doosan Encyclopedia article" is malformed. Would you fix the link? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above evidence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources found by CountHacker are mostly simple passing mentions and do not help in establishing WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing vote: Redirect to Wang_Ko#Family as a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cocobb8, there are two Korean-language encyclopedia articles on this individual. That is not a passing mention. Not only that, he held the the office of Prince/King of Sim/Shen (various ways to translate it), which was a major office in Goryeo-Yuan politics, and had authority over the Koreans who lived in the Yuan-controlled Liaodong area. There were various attempts to place Wang Toqto'a-Buqa on the throne of Goryeo, he wasn't just a random noble prince, but an influential prince with power and influence, who nearly became king in at least two attempts.⁂CountHacker (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @CountHacker, encyclopedic articles are tertiary sources, so they cannot be used demonstrate notability, as GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, kinds and princes are not inherently notable and must demonstrate their own notability per WP:NBIO. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.

  The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by CountHacker (talk · contribs). The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between Redirect and Keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep, clearly passes GNG per CountHacker's sources, and the two encyclopedia's entries alone are more than enough to establish notability. The redirect comments should be disregarded, the first one (we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found) is pure nonsense: it would had made sense as long as sources had not been provided, but changing the delete vote to redirect after sourcing has been provided just leaves a contradictory and illogical rationale. The second one, claiming that individual entries on established encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Doosan Encyclopedia do not count towards notability, is just a WP:CIR issue and a WP:COMMONSENSE failure. --Cavarrone 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:42, 25 June 2024 (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.