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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The nominator has not explained how an emperor of China could fail to be considered notable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xuande Emperor[edit]

Xuande Emperor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

little known figure in Chinese history. He fails the guidelines for WP:Notability Ihopeididwell (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly rewrite The article looks good, and I'm kinda confused how it it fails on notability; he looks to be an influential, albeit not very well know, important person in Chinese history. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have to echo Leonard Bloom on this -- notability seems fairly obvious in the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable, per Leonard and Ecoleetage above. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There is no way this is non notable. Undeath (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong/Speedy/Snowball Keep As it says at WP:PEOPLE, the basic notability criteria people is this: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Not only do multiple (and I mean very multiple) independent sources exist , but sufficient sources are mentioned in the article. And on top of that, I very seriously doubt that any Emperor of China is going to be so "little known" as to not be the subject of a great deal of study and published material (Believe me, historians love this sort of thing. They make a career out of it). Calgary (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep A real emperor up for deletion as not notable? WP:POLITICIAN says that "people who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" are notable, and I think emperors qualify under this criterion :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't imagine an emperor of China not being notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The correct section under WP:BIO would be WP:BIO#Politicians, which explicitly states that

People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges [are generally notable].

A Chinese emperor of 10 years definitely meets that criteria. I'm also suspecting that this is a bad-faith nomination, seeing that this nomination is the only edit this user has, and that it's almost obviously keep per the quote above. Taking these 2 facts into consideration, I'm going for speedy keep. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:39, 23 June 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.