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. No prejustice against recreation if reliable sources can be found. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Shian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article asserts notability and, if verifiable, would be notable. But it provides absolutely no way to verify these events (not that I doubt it, per se; it's that the article, as written, makes it impossible to verify), and provides insufficient context. I realize that deletion is not a substitute to cleanup, but in this case, cleanup is impossible, and the article as written is impossible to salvage. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whether verifiable or not, its not notable. The bulk of the article is about the Defense of the Great Wall and is in fact already covered there (including his role) in greater detail. The commanding general in a notable battle is not inherently notable. See WP:INHERITED. Ravendrop 06:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In fact, any general is inherently notable. See WP:SOLDIER. However, as a regimental commander this man was presumably a colonel and therefore does not fall into this category. He may, however, fall into the category of individuals who "played an important role in a significant military event". The article is not detailed enough to tell us at the moment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per WP:SOLDIER, needs massive improvement to get out of stub class. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - regardless of whether or not the subject was a general, it appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under both WP:GNG and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: due to lack of significant coverage per WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:02, 27 February 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.