- 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yang Xiu (Sui dynasty) (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)
I PROD'd this article because it was unsourced. Now, a few sources have been added to the bottom of the page but the content of the article is unverified and could be original research for all anyone can tell. It makes a lot of historical claims and tells detailed stories without any evidence of its accuracy. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this is a rationale for deletion. The number of editors working on Chinese history topic is extremely small—most articles on individuals pre 20th-century are in awful shape, even higher-profile emperors. This, along with hundreds of other Chinese history articles, uses primary sources and has no footnotes, mainly because that is how the few editors who did write on Chinese history wrote their articles. Again, WP:DEL-CONTENT says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". If deleting articles because they could be OR was a practice, the thousands of articles with the tag "this article cites no sources", wouldn't exist. Aza24 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I added a couple of inline book references. I can understand that the nominator is bothered by the present text, with its anecdotes about framing with buried dolls, etc., but adapting/simplifying the text to move from the historiographical practice of past times to the norms of our time and extending inline referencing are matters for normal editing rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Worst case the article can be stubified, and I believe there is no question as to this persons notability. Jumpytoo Talk 19:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, clearly notable. Remove or cite unsourced material as needed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- A lack of sources is not a ground for AFD. Such articles should be tagged to be referenced, unless blatantly WP:OR or HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep very notablen historical figure. VocalIndia (talk) 13:00, 24 November 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.