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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tung-Wang

[edit]

Disputed prod. Even though Phil Bridger added some references, I still do not see how he passes WP:BIO, but I'd like to throw this one up to AfD. Thanks. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I admit that the references are a bit weak - the first is published by AuthorHouse (a self-publishing house) and the second is a translation of something written by the subject - but I thought it better to get more eyes on this rather than let it get deleted with prod. The Internet wasn't around in the late 9th century so sources may not all be available online, and even for those that are they would probably be in Chinese or, if in English, may use different transliterations. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historically noteworthy author. We shouldn't expect authors dead 1000+ years to engage in the same kind of publicity whoring that we expect from modern authors. Meets WP:N, if anything, historical cases should be held to more lienent standards than modern ones due to issues of significance of publications with time and all that. Wily D 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is he historically noteworthy? I'd be willing to withdraw this AfD if someone can establish notability. DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just having a record of an author from 1200 years ago is an indication of notablity and Phil has shown modern English langauge sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep classic authors with surviving works are notable, especially if there are modern publications about them. DGG (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you sure "The Lighter Side" of Global Village News is really a reliable source? And the self-published book just contains a reprint of the same joke, as far as I can see. Juzhong (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of source and content. Rewrite a possible, but need more content. --Vsion (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2008 (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.