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 no consensus. valid opinions on both sides regarding depth of the sources Cunard identified Star Mississippi 18:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Silu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Currently sourced with a single, unreliable source. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability. Would have draftified, but this editor has an issue with draftification, so here we are. Without better sourcing, which I can't find, does not appear to meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Per nom. Perhaps an actual discussion resulting in draftification might change their mind, seems like the most logical choice for an article with nowhere near enough sourcing. — ((u|Bsoyka)) ^talk 18:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chinese version has only one source as well. No help from there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are the sources I added to the article:
  1. Wang, Liqun (2020). 成語裏的家風（一）家庭倫理篇 [Family Tradition in Idioms (1) Family Ethics] (in Chinese). 中華教育. p. 32. ISBN 978-98-88-67502-9. Retrieved 2022-03-18.
  2. 宋涛, ed. (2013). 荣宝斋书谱·古代部分·颜真卿·颜勤礼碑 [Books of Rongbaozhai·Ancient Parts·Yan Zhenqing·Yan Qinli Stele] (in Chinese). Beijing: 荣宝斋出版. ISBN 978-7-5003-1598-8. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
  3. 拜根兴 (2016). 唐代朝野政治与文化研究 [Research on the Politics and Culture of the Tang Dynasty] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. ISBN 978-7-5161-7640-5. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
  4. Guanqun, Shen [zh] (1988). 中国教育家评传, Volume 1 [Commentary on Chinese Educators, Volume 1] (in Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai Education Publishing House [zh]. p. 453. ISBN 978-7-5320-0647-2. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books. ((cite book)): Check |author= value (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  5. Knechtges, David R. (2014). Knechtges, David R.; Chang, Taiping (eds.). Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature (vol. 3 & 4): A Reference Guide, Part Three & Four. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 1794. ISBN 978-90-04-26788-6. ISSN 0169-9520. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
  6. 顏氏家訓 [Yan's family motto] (in Chinese). 2019. ISBN 978-98-69-70360-4. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yan Silu (simplified Chinese: 颜思鲁; traditional Chinese: 顏思魯) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further analysis of Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on User:Cunard's sources. Atchom (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Amazing unresearched voters and nominator ! Minister of the royal court automatically passes WP:NPOL. How much do you need? VocalIndia (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Indefinite block for personal attacks. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - none of the refs provided by Cunard are in-depth about this subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• onel5969 So how you know? you can read Chinese? pls someone report onel5969 for WP:IDONTLIKE case on historical figures. Court minister is auto notable on Wikipedia and higher than member of parliament. Minister is not a joke. He living 400 years ago that is quite a lot of detail including a multi-page biography that someone wrote about him. More than sufficient for a historical figure. The article is already improved by Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - no I don't speak or read Chinese. However, one of my business partners was born and grew up in Shanghai and is quite fluent. I had him take a look at the sources, which is why it took me so long to respond to Cunard's post. Nothing but brief mentions. And the personal attacks are wearing thin. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Depth is contextual. Classical Chinese is a notoriously terse form of verbal expression and that has to factor in. Atchom (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I come back this afternoon, I will translate them. I have a intern in my office who can speak and read this. Classical Chinese sources may be notoriously terse, but that isn't a substitute for depth or significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dude is not into today. He has been shirking, so tommorrow lunch time, if we can keep it open until then please. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I would give significant leeway to historical figures as online sourcing might not be the best especially as we are mainly sourcing through a website that is banned in China. I can see that the online sourcing is already enough to write a Start-level article about him which is enough in my opinion. Jumpytoo Talk 17:41, 24 March 2022 (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.