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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanzang (fictional character)

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG. Article does not have independent reliable third party sources, as set out in notability guidelines. Referencing is not optional so without sources I propose that this page be not kept Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — subject is certainly notable, though it is admittedly odd that the page is unreferenced. I could make a point of adding reliable source references (though it may need to wait a week or two). Alternately, we might consider merging this content with the main article on Xuanzang as a section discussing adaptations of his story in literature and art.Homunculus (duihua) 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sourcing present in articles is optional; sourcing existing is not. Given the age of the reference, I'm suspicious that the latter is true, and cannot support merging (deletion is not a viable outcome, per WP:ATD) until and unless a sincere search has proven fruitless. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable. Surely there's a great number of references particularly applicable to a central character of one of the Four Great Classical Novels of the most populous nation on earth, the one whose "journey to the West" is the basic storyline frame; a story with countless spinoffs & adaptations and influences on Chinese popular culture. (See List of media adaptations of Journey to the West & Journey to the West in popular culture.) The state of the current article is no reason to delete, and surely Homunculus will be able to do the work eventually and deserve our thanks. Not a good idea to merge with the real person's article. We (properly) have (separate) articles on Macbeth the real person, Macbeth the character, Macbeth the play, Lady Macbeth, even lesser characters like Banquo etc. This & the other main characters are quite comparable.John Z (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing proving the existence of references without a doubt in your comment, and as notability is not inherited your recommendation to keep is thus premature until sources are actually found.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The current featured article, Poppy Meadow, is a minor character in a soap opera. The article in question is a major character in one of the greatest works of oriental literature. The nomination is not policy-based as our core policy makes it quite clear that referencing is entirely optional, being only required for quotations or controversial points. If such references are required, the remedy is to add them, not to delete the entire article. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid recommendation. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument and WP:NOTPLOT does actually require "discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary" in articles about fiction. WP:N further elaborates on this and establishes that if no reliable sources allows to "discuss the reception and significance of notable works", then the article doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Simply saying "add sources" is not a valid reason to keep the article. You have to prove that sources discussing the reception and significance" do exist, and you failed to do that, Warden.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support the call for more references, but this undeniably a notable character, a major part of a very famous novel. We should fix it, not delete.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to fix it is to find sources that discuss the reception and significance of the character. You should first look for sources before recommending conservation, maybe these sources don't exist.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (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.