Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xia Suntong

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The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator with no other delete opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xia Suntong

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. One of over a 100 co-authors on the Draft History of Qing. There are limited auction results for the artist: https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Xia-Suntong/F873E5274457B2F8/AuctionResults, but I could not find other English references showing significance. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind WP:CONTN, this is a sad case of WP:BIAS, given the plethora of Chinese-language sources on this Qing scholar, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. Baike Baidu has a brief outline too for an easy starter. A quick look at the nominator's talk page doesn't exactly inspire confidence: he comes across as an inexperienced and trigger-happy deletionist who just takes a glance at page one of Google and calls it a day. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 100 co-authors were not all of equal standing, and according to this study Xia contributed the most! [4] KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be good information to add to the page Draft_History_of_Qing. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to do it yourself. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undertake personal attacks. You are right that the article does not determine notability; however, this being a English wiki and all the sources you have provided are not English, how about translating the relevant sections and putting them into references for the article? At the moment the only reference in the article is a book with no page number or translation provided of the relevant section. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to do so, although I would if you had just proposed that instead of nominating the page for deletion. The 'personal attacks' are warranted insofar as they pertain to your troubling pattern of nominating a whole slew of articles for deletion to varying success. Your comments about 'this being a English (sic) wiki' once again demonstrate WP:BIAS. Xia is without a doubt notable, nuff said! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note you removed the tags today, which shows another editor also was concerned about this page since April 2020: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: One source is just a book and doesn't cite page or author. (April 2020)

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (April 2020)

This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (April 2020)"

You also removed the one reference that this article relied on and then replaced it with another. Did the previous reference not reference Xia Suntong, and was placed in error? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not placed in error. I just thought this new source was better and more succinct (although the previous source does contain a detailed commentary on his writings which can be reintroduced later.) You would know if you read the source for yourself—and if you haven't, because you can't access it, you shouldn't assume bad faith. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should do something more productive instead of randomly trying to delete articles of things or people you know nothing about. Just my honest opinion. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you apply WP:NONENG, so that myself and others can read the relevant portion of the reference? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing plenty of sources about the subject[5][6][7][8][9], with more available on Google Books and Google Scholar. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see number eight has an English one sentence summary. There appears to be evidence to keep the article, is it possible to apply WP:NONENG to the other references? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you requesting that I translate the titles/abstracts of some of the sources to demonstrate that they're about Xia Suntong? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for the relevant part to show Xia Suntong's notability and ideally that could be transferred into the article. It seems to be a serious shame for the article to be such a short stub for a notable person. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Granger are solely covering the subject and meet WP:GNG. Generally for non-English sources, Google Translate provides a good enough translation to evaluate if the coverage is significant. Jumpytoo Talk 21:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the discussion so far, I believe that the AFD can be closed as notability has been shown. I would suggest for improving the articles quality that the references quoted in this AFD be transferred to the article and WP:NONENG applied to the references.KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.