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 merge to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. Merge all to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. As per discussion various redirects and deletes will be made post merge (see below). I suggest a section be setup on Talk:List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms to coordinate the merge. The essential discussions regarding further deletions, redirects and content to keep should take place on relevant talk pages. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Yuanzhi[edit]

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

This fictional character is not especially notable in the historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Almost all the content in the article is WP:PLOTONLY. Delete. LDS _{contact me} 05:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as stated above. These four pages were created by me, but they have also been edited by other users since then, but the changes aren't very significant. It will be great if WP:CSD#G7 can be applied to these four articles.

LDS _{contact me} 06:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating more related pages for the same reason as stated above. The following pages were not created by me.

LDS _{contact me} 06:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating a few more pages which I've missed out earlier.

LDS _{contact me} 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a lot of pages. I say delete everything per WP:FICTION. Romance of the Three Kingdoms already has a monolithic plot summary, but if these articles contain any useful information that isn't already mentioned there it could be moved to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. If anyone has the time or energy, that is... —Noiratsi (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOTONLY. All of these articles will languish forever as perpetual stubs if they remain. Snuge purveyor (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge per Benjitheijneb. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Romance of the Three Kingdoms , unless the subjects are not independently notable of the work, all these articles can be converted to redirects to the work.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge everything to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms per WP:CSC#2 - lists of characters of a notable literary work are accepted by the Stand-alone lists guideline. Diego (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms as above; the articles, though stub-lengthed, still present some information which would be useful. Most of the listed articles are already short enough that adding their information to the list will not enlargen it to unreasonable lengths. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to Noiratsi's comment, I am willing to begin moving relevent information not covered in other articles across as soon as a consensus to merge is reached. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the idea of merger, but I prefer deletion because there are other more notable persons who share the same names as some of these characters, such as Sun Ji (footballer), Liu Xian and Han Fu. Ideally, if a dab page is shared by one of these characters and another more notable person, the latter should take precedence over the former. Perhaps we merge only for those characters with really unique names, such as the Xiahous and the Nanman characters? LDS _{contact me} 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we could copy across the information for those characters without setting up a redirect? For example, taking the information from the Sun Ji (Three Kingdoms) to the fictional characters list, but not introducing a redirect for a Sun Ji disambiguation to the list itself. Having information about characters sharing names with more notable persons doesn't mean we have to recognise their names in-list as a potential disambiguation target. I hope you've understood what I'm trying to say; I am struggling slightly to phrase it clearly. EDIT: In other words, manually copy the information across and then delete the Three Kingdoms character page, then redirect the relevent pages towards their more notable counterparts with the same name (as opposed to a disambiguation page to separate the character and the notable person). EDIT AGAIN (sorry!): Though as you say, we could introduce a redirect for the unique names such as the ones you mentioned. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me share my interpretation of your suggestion through categorisation:

Characters who share the same names as other more notable persons (let's call this category A), such as Sun Ji (general), Liu Xian (fictional), Han Fu (fictional) etc.
Characters whose names are sui generis and are highly unlikely to be shared by any other notable persons (let's call this category B), such as the two Xiahous, the Nanman characters etc.

For category A, we copy relevant information from the articles to the fictional characters list and delete the articles. After that, we omit the character's names from any disambiguation pages (if there are any), and use the character's names (without the disambiguation) as the titles of the articles on their more notable counterparts (through moves, I believe). Let me use Sun Ji as an example to illustrate: Sun Ji (general) and Sun Ji (disambiguation) will be deleted, and Sun Ji (footballer) will be moved to Sun Ji.

For category B, direct merging to the fictional character list by copying relevant information from the articles to the list, and then redirecting them to the list.

Is this what you mean? I do not object to this idea, but it'll be a tedious and possibly complicated task, especially for category A. LDS _{contact me} 05:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that. I am of the belief that any suitable information should be taken from these articles before deletion, and I do believe that the benefit of redirecting the Category A pages to avoid disambiguations will justify the extra effort taken on account of these pages. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My own preference is delete all -- this is not a Three Kingdoms Wiki, and I tend to think that there's so much irrelevant information out there on the Three Kingdoms already. I can see the point of merging and I don't disagree that it's a reasonable idea. --Nlu (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true; if a merge does go through, it would definitely be worth giving the list a once-over to check how much remains of relevence. Not everything in these articles is worth transferring; I simply believe that for the sake of the information that IS relevent, deletion should be delayed until whatever should be merged is merged. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution[edit]

Based on the responses from various parties thus far, the majority seems to be in favour of merger and a few users who prefer deletion (including me) are not opposed to merging. As such, I'm posting here a more detailed draft of the solution proposed by Benjitheijneb.

Category B articles

Relevant information from the following will be copied to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. These articles will then be redirected to the list:

Category A articles

Relevant information from the following will be copied to the list, and the actions specified for each entry will be taken:

Cui Liang (Three Kingdoms) deleted; Cui Liang (handballer) moved to Cui Liang
Meng Jie deleted; Meng Jie (fencer) moved to Meng Jie (the page history of the fictional Meng Jie erased and replaced with that of the fencer's page)
Han Fu (fictional) deleted and its entry erased from Han Fu
Wang Zhi (fictional) deleted and its entry erased from Wang Zhi
Liu Xian (fictional) deleted and its entry erased from Liu Xian
Chen Ying (fictional) deleted and its entry erased from Chen Ying
Wang Zhi (fictional) deleted and its entry erased from Wang Zhi
Liu Xian (fictional) deleted and its entry erased from Liu Xian
Chen Ying (fictional) deleted and its entry erased from Chen Ying
Wang Tao (Three Kingdoms) deleted and its entry erased from Wang Tao
Sun Ji (general) and Sun Ji (disambiguation) deleted; Sun Ji (footballer) moved to Sun Ji

The following will be deleted after relevant information from them is copied to the list:

Mu Shun, Mu Shun (general) and Mu Shun (eunuch)
Gou An
Deng Mao
Gao Sheng and Gao Sheng (rebel)
Yan Zheng and Yan Zheng (rebel)
Sun Zhong and Sun Zhong (rebel)
Pan Feng
Fang Yue
Zhao Cen
Chen Heng
Du Yuan
Kong Xiu
Bian Xi
Qin Qi
Cai He
Cai Zhong
Gong Zhi
Jia Hua
Zhou Shan
Yang Song
Meng You
Han De
Zhang Qiu
Dang Jun
Qiu Ben
Cen Pi
Cheng Kuang
Gong Jing
Ning Sui
Wei Hong
Zou Jing

Any comments? If everything goes well, we should get cracking soon and complete the task by the end of next week. LDS _{contact me} 09:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and speedy close. The discussion seems to have rapidly reached a conclusion that the content be kept and restructured. These are essentially ordinary editing processes; decisions as to which if any articles remain discrete, which merged, and which simply redirected are not deletion-related. The essential discussions should take place on relevant talk pages, with appropriate tags placed on the articles involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, although not all will be deleted, those that are kept will still be redirected. This discussion is essentially still related to deletion, just that we've come to the details on how to handle each article. Why the rush? LDS _{contact me} 01:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In theory I agree with the above proposal, but in practice I think it will be difficult in stopping new editors from creating articles for fictional characters. If they enter a Category B name then it's no problem since they will just be redirected, but if they enter a Category A name then they might think Wikipedia doesn't have any information on them and be tempted to make an article on these Cat. A fictional people. I therefore think it is better to keep the disambiguation pages and/or the hatnotes on the names' primary topic. _dk (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When they attempt to create a category A page again, a message will pop up, informing them that a previous page with the same name had been deleted. That may serve a "deterrent" effect. Anyway, we can always start AFDs for the pages if they are created again. Keeping the dab pages and the hatnotes is not a bad idea, I don't object to that unless the community says otherwise. LDS _{contact me} 12:48, 28 January 2013 (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.