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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tian Ruisheng[edit]

Tian Ruisheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Sect leader of questionable notability. Over the top promotion. Primarily sourced by pieces from two people. 1, the subject, clearly not independent, 2 John Dolic, a devotee whose publications are self published, not independent and not reliable. Claimed to have over 30 million followers [1] but claimed does not make it so. If there is some notability here this is not the appropriate page, TNT it and let someone else start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fluff piece about a religious person, way longer than it needs to be. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an overly promotional article at best, but no indication of actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Oaktree B. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not about a sect leader. It is about Qigong (go to Wikipedia to read about it). I added more references plus recognition from both the highest level Chinese scientists as well as an official recognition in a Chinese reputable publication. Most people in the west do not realise how massive Qigong is in China (especially during the eighties and nineties). For almost a decade Fragrant Qigong practitioners outnumbered all others and Tian was one of the most famous masters of the time. To say a little over a thousand words “is way to long” for such a person!?Sthdifferent (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that Ruisheng isn't mentioned in the current Qigong article. If he is significant to its history, I suggest including it in that main article for the subject, rather than having a standalone article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ruisheng should be mentioned in the current Qigong article and hopefully someone will do it sooner than me. It is also interesting that many other significant masters of Qigong, both present and past, were not mentioned either. So that should not be the reason for the exclusion of the standalone article.Sthdifferent (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure if John Dolic is Tian’s devotee but he certainly did far more research on the subject than the others (among the western instructors of Qigong) thus the reason for quoting his website and book/magazine more than others.Sthdifferent (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article appears to be very promotional. I couldn't find much WP:RS from a google search. Lord Grandwell (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2021 (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.