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 redirect to Battle of Beiping–Tianjin#The Langfang Incident. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Langfang Incident[edit]

Langfang Incident (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)

Does not cite sources. Only one reference. Does not meet the standard of a quality article... Sennti (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The lack of inline citations, presence of a single reference and the current state of article quality are not reasons to delete. Not separately -- nor taken together. If this remains the extent of the deletion rationale, oppose. We do see that there is a fairly well developed referenced article on the Japanese wiki, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reason to delete has been given. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason to document the minutiae of skirmishes of a war, which would be tedious read. Unless something significant and noteworthy happened at this event, it does not need an article. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, some citations in the Japanese version of the article (ja:廊坊事件) are primary sources, but not all are. There seems to be plenty to develop this and show it passes GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ansh666 (below). It can be re-spun off into its own article if necessary later. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also possible that this could be redirected or merged to Battle of Beiping–Tianjin#The Langfang Incident, which contains a bit more information but no inline citations. ansh666 21:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per User:Ansh666 for now. Timmyshin (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: agree with Ansh666 that redirect seems the best solution here for the timebeing. I have no issues with the article being resurrected later, though, if more information and sources are provided. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• REdirect -- Too little content to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (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.