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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Jinmo (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)

TL;DR: delete per WP:PROMO and WP:NPERSON.

G11 speedy was declined, in hindsight probably correctly because it isn't unambiguous. However, unsourced phrases such as "renowned expert" don't belong in an encyclopedia. It's written like a hagiography and sources show no indication of him being the primary topic of significant coverage and is instead mentioned in passing in books about Chinese medicine, not him. Google search. DrStrauss talk 16:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the claim "renowned expert" would and can be taken literal, as a known expert, this itself would satisfy our WP:PROF in the relevant field; a simple online search cannot be confided with something from the last century and nearly into the one before that; especially when the subject is clearly going to have limits given the circumstances, therefore a one search cannot be considered enough. The current article claims he was part of the Legislation, that itself would be enough for the (currently quoted in nomination): WP:Politician. The current sources are enough to show there is actual significance and that alone can lend into notability, the current availability of other sources not being relevant at all. If we take concern in something as simple as the "expert" claims, it would potentially mean removing any article simply because they were claimed to be important in the field, which isn't how this encyclopedia works. Including if this claim were ever a concern, that itself is not a WP:Deletion policy cause; there's actually no advertising at all, especially since the subject hasn't lived for over 40 years. Founding a national education academy itself would also satisfy the relevant notability WP:PROF. Also, as the linked WP:Before mentions: search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet, and we have no evidence of it here. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - numerous secondary sources attest to his notability. He was one of the most renowned doctors in China. See [1] [2] [3] and many others. The article as written actually understates his fame. -Zanhe (talk) 08:48, 3 September 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.