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 delete. WP:V controls here: we can't possibly source details about a historical character to what is obviously fiction. T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Zhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Molding of verifiable (that Liu Chang had a Persian concubine nicknamed Mei Zhu)(Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (十國春秋), vol. 61) with unverifiable/fictional material (citations to a novel (宋代宮闡史, History of the Palace Secrets of the Song Dynasty — which, despite its title containing "history," is clearly historical fiction rather than an actual historical work)). The verifiable parts of the content may make her notable, but I think it's a close call and that ultimately she was not notable; the current article itself is not salvageable because of its mixing of factual and fictional material, I believe. (The fictional material is not itself notable, unlike, for example, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or the Journey to the West, in my opinion.) I will admit that it's not a clear-cut call, but I still believe the action to take is delete. (Those who are interested in discussing about this, please let me know if a translation of the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms passage would be necessary or helpful to your opinion; if it would, I would be happy to translate it.) --Nlu (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The number of sources suggests notability. We can add a note to the text of the article that it's not clear how much of the story of Mei Zhu is fact and how much is legend. Henry V has a character named "Henry V" who bears a striking resemblence to Henry V. --Selket ^Talk 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• More info Please explain why you believe the woman is fictional or her deeds fictional. What is the evidence for and against? Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The woman was not fictional per se. Under the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (which is a reliable source in my opinion) she existed. However, the reliable parts of what she did ends there. The rest of the article's descriptions of her alleged deeds cites a clearly fictional work. It would be as if someone cited Gore Vidal's Burr for the truth of the matter stated about what Aaron Burr did. --Nlu (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like things said about Catherine the Great. Let's have the translation and information about the author, please, to better assess. When in doubt, I tend to retain, but I'd like to get it right. If the information is large, can you set it up as a subpage? Thanks for the extra effort. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Let me start with the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms, as the (again, I believe) reliable source. The source that I consider unreliable will take longer due to its more voluminous nature. But again, the diction used in the latter work clearly shows that it's a fictional work; it was not written in a historical tone and was written in the same style as historical fiction, not as history. (No, I don't know how to describe it, per se; as has been said, I know pornography when I see it, and this is the equivalent thereof; not only that, but the work also used completely anachronistic terms at times, further showing that it was fiction, not history. In addition, its chapters are labeled hui (回), clearly signifying the author's intent to designate it as a historical novel (whose genre is often known as Zhanghui Xiaoshuo (章回小說, literally, "novel that is divided into chapters") versus the actual serious historical works, whose chapters would be labeled juan (卷, literally, "scroll"); in the translations here, I am using "volume" for both, but it is clear that the context is completely different.) --Nlu (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it turned out, I erred slightly; the two fictional source citations are to two fictional sources, not one (I made the mistake because neither citation gave a source name); still, that does not make the citations more reliable; it makes them less, in my opinion. The second source below (which was simply titled "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" (五代十國), which was the name of the historical era) was clearly historical fiction as well, bearing the same signatures in diction and labeling its chapters as hui. --Nlu (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be noted also that the "Mei Zhu" being 媚珠 ("beautiful pearl") rather than 媚豬 ("beautiful pig") assertion came from Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms; the historical source Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms referred to her as 媚豬, not 媚珠. --Nlu (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, one of the links used [1] is a blog that does quote from what appears to be a somewhat more serious source (The Full Records of the Secrets of the Chinese Emperors' Private Lives in Their Palaces) — but which expanded on the Mei Zhu origins without any real indication of truth or fiction. I'll translate it below as well. (It should be noted that it is clear that the fourth source plagiarized from the second source without acknowledgment; the second source was written during "Republican times" (as the cover indicated), which suggests that it was written in first half of 20th century; the fourth source appears to be a recent work.)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/SGCQ (Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms translation, done)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/SDGCS (History of the Palace Secrets of the Song Dynasty translation, done)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/WDSG (Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms translation, done)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/ZGDWHGSSHZMQJL (Full Records of the Secrets of the Chinese Emperors' Private Lives in Their Palaces translation, done)
        • I forgot to translate one paragraph in this final source, which was not per se Mei Zhu-related, but was mentioned in the article; I am adding it now. (This paragraph may make the least sense of all: how does someone "win" or "lose" in sexual intercourse?) --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: the use of these completely unreliable sources — indeed, sources that spout complete nonsense — in forming the article makes the article completely not credible and not encyclopedic. Once these unreliable sources are excised, I believe that she is no longer sufficiently notable to warrant an article of her own, but it is, I admit, a close call. (Frankly, if I were the colleague or advisor of one of the other authors who apparently did rely on these unreliable sources that are clear extrapolations rather than historical expansions of the historical account and which bordered on pornography, I would be completely ashamed. But of course, while I did consider it, I did not try to go into academia in history. Maybe after retirement I would.) --Nlu (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, you've done a wonderful job. In the 4th article, I wonder if 'fat' and 'black' could be translated as voluptuous and dark? Great job, Nlu. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "fat" in this case appeared to be intended to be semi-derogatory in diction, so that's why I used "fat." As far as "black" is concerned, I use "black" when the character 黑 is used, where I would use "dark" when 暗 is used. Thanks for the compliment. --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with your notes or Redirect Mei Zhu to a new article titled something like 'Mei Zhu (legend)' that includes the original article with your polished translations in separate sections. Normally I'd be concerned about opinion and POV, but here you've carefully made arguments toward both sides, and I think along with the title, it would let the reader choose what to think once given all the facts. (Just the way I like it!) In other words, I propose you (1) create a new article Mei Zhu (legend) with your notes and translations augmenting the original story, and then (2) redirect Mei Zhu to your new article. Would that address all issues? Respectfully, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that a "legends" article is clearly undue; it's so trashy as to be beyond reason even for a "legends" article. Further, again, none of these works was a significant work of literature, unlike the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, as an example — or even some of the lesser works such as Fengshen Yanyi or Legend of the Bearded Guest (虯髯客傳). --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But let me clarify again; her status as a favored concubine of an emperor may be sufficient for notability, but I still think she falls short. --Nlu (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, I draw your attention to Legends of Catherine the Great, which strikes me as having parallels. National Geographic, I believe, featured a story about her life and laid out rumours about her sex life in great detail, but explained that many stories were probably concocted by her enemies. I'm a minor student of Roman history which is rife with such rumours. Take, for example, Valeria Messalina, who like Mei Zhu has multiple sources of varying degree from Tacitus to graffiti. I conclude that not only is precedence available, but your efforts (a) give us valuable semi)historical information and (b) help readers decide what is true or not. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but Mei Zhu was not Catherine the Great. Had she been a female sovereign, or even the wife of a sovereign, I might agree, but she's a concubine whose real name was not known and whose imperial consort rank, if any, was not even recorded in history. I don't see the situation as analogous. --Nlu (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (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.