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. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E 02:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeung Lai Chuen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting as requested by participants at the DRV SpinningSpark 09:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I've started looking for sources, I realise I did not really need to limit myself to Chinese language book sources. Books and magazines found using English terms include;

SpinningSpark 09:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The references are not primary, that is a silly criticism. Some can perhaps be criticised for not being peer reviewed scholarly papers, but publications by a club or sports association on history of a sport does not amount to primary. Primary sources would be sources written by Jeung Lai Chuen himself or contemporary correspondence with him or a contemporary witness to events in his life. SpinningSpark 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primary is a pretty relative term - these are organizations writing about themselves and their origins. Call it what you will there is a dearth of independent sources for either the subject or his style which leaves the question is he a founder of a notable style - something that would meet WP:MANOTE. For WP:GNG I would think you need more than club websites.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion when there are hundreds of books covering Pak Mei, including this one that says "There is a thriving civilian Pak Mei tradition in southern China, largely due to the teaching efforts of Chang Lai-chuen (1880-1964)." And you do not even need to try different transliterations to get that result, "Bak Mei" also gets book results in the hundreds. Mostly, these books don't have preview, but I simply cannot accept that there is not enough material there to meet Wikipedia requirements for anyone who wants to get down a library and do the research. SpinningSpark 17:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is the problem with using a semi-legendary name as your purported origin. Several styles, claim origin to Bak Mai, not just the one founded by the subject and to make things more difficult the name has become part of popular culture complete with movies and books. A similar situation would be for example Ninja styles in Japanese martial arts especially what we see in the West. That one source you pointed out is from the true shaolin temple based in Oregon - sorry that raises red flags. You seem to want to force me into a position I have not taken - all I am saying showing notability is difficult to the point where I find it difficult to decide the best course.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off topic because this discussion is not about the Bak Mei article, but your statements that "several styles, claim origin to Bak Mai" and "the name has become part of popular culture" speak for notability, not detracts from it. My point was that anything that has books written on it in the many hundreds cannot possibly not be notable. The fact that some of them are written by practitioners does not detract from that any more than most books on physics are written by physicists. As for your comparison with ninja, I rest my case, that is unarguably notable and none of the points you raise would detract from that in the slightest. The truth of the relationship of Cheung to Bak Mei is not really relevant to settling this AFD. That sources talk about him in relation to Bak Mei is the only thing that is of importance here. SpinningSpark 00:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly off topic but my point is that using a name that is notable does not make you notable - there are no styles that can claim an unbroken lineage to Bak Mai (the person) and it is not even sure "White Eyebrows" existed. I never said the term Bak Mai (or Ninja) were not notable just questioned whether Jeung Lai Chuen is the founder of a notable style (which like several unrelated others like to claim a legendary origin). Searching for Bak Mai to establish his notability is to use your term - silly - it just doesn't discriminate enough. Does he meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG that is all I am questioning. By the by nothing I am saying contradicts the Bak Mei article.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2015 (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.