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. Salvio ^giuliano 15:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Guangde[edit]

Zhang Guangde (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)

While accomplished, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.  While he did originate a procedure, apparently, all the sourcing for procedure, which will also be at AfD as I did not feel bundling was appropriate, is primary sourcing, except for the one book reference in this article.  Both articles were tagged for a week without improvement, after which I prodded this one, and sent the article about the procedure to draft.  This was de-prodded, and the procedure article was returned to mainspace, both without improvement.  Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that either passes GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. He didn't originate just a procedure but a novel system that has been incorporated into China's curriculum of education. This novel system is taught in China's academic institutions and used as alternative or complementary medicine in hospitals in China. The subject aslo meets WP:ANYBIO#2 and WP:CREATIVE#2. As I already pointed out to the nom in other venues, articles aren't draftify because they aren't notable, and WP:DRAFTIFY is not a backdoor to deletion. If you think that the subject of an article does not meet any inclusion criteria, nominate it for deletion. Shoerack (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I'd agree with this assessment, we need further sourcing, but I'm seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, and that's why they are sent to draft, for improvement, for they do not currently meet WP standards for inclusion, but have the possibility to do so.  You chose to ignore that opportunity to improve the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it met the required standard. Articles that meet the required standard should not be WP: DRAFTIFY. This article meets WP:STUB and has a high chance of surviving at AfD. It doesn't meet any WP:CSD criteria. You tagged it with Template: Notability, because you thought it wasn't notable, and shortly moved it to the draft space. This is the definition of "using draftify as a backdoor to deletion." That was not the purpose of WP:DRAFTIFY. Shoerack (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should really read WP:DRAFTIFY. The topic has some potential merit; however the article did not meet the required standard (hence the notability tag); and there was no improvement after it was tagged, meaning there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour since the last constructive edit); and the article does not contain copyright violations. Textbook draftify. However, in this instance, a BEFORE did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG, so it was prodded, instead of draftification. The Prod was contested, again without improvement, and so we are here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the relevant policy above, not you. I am unsure why you thought I would link to a policy I haven't read, despite quoting some of its key elements and components. That said, you added the Template:Notability tag. This tag is not for article improvement. Notability cannot be improved but may be established with multiple independent, and reliable sources as required by WP:GNG or SNG. You seem to be thinking that subjects that appear non-notable to you at first glance should be moved to draft space. I have told you repeatedly that this is a bad approach. Subjects that are not notable should be nominated for deletion, and not to draftify. Per WP:DRAFTIFY , pages that meet the required standard are pages that meet WP:STUB, have high chances of surviving at AfD, and pages that do not meet any speedy deletion criterion. Shoerack (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Here are some sources:
  1. Kohn, Livia (2008). Chinese Healing Exercises: The Tradition of Daoyin. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-8248-3234-6. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Another is Daoyin Yangsheng, developed by Zhang Guangde 张广德, a Beijing academic who developed serious health problems and in 1974 was diagnosed with heart disease and tuberculosis. Then, as the workshop flyer of Red Lotus Tai Chi Qigong in New Hampshire says, [quote]. Zhang's system, which is quite popular in China and practiced variously in the West, is documented in his book Daoyin yangsheng gong 导引养生功 (2001). Acknowledged officially as a form of qigong and recognized by various martial arts and sports organizations in China, it involves moves that are adapted from taiji quan but that are gentler and more medically focused. Its sequences tend to specialize in different areas of ailments. ..."

  2. Faulkner, Gordon (2011). Managing Stress with Qigong. London: Singing Dragon. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-84819-035-1. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "In the 1970s Daoyin Yangsheng enters the picture. Daoyin Yangsheng is a modern healthcare system created by Professor Zhang Guangde and taught at the Beijing Sports University. This comprehensive system follows the usual Daoyin actions of gentle exercise with breath control, the stimulation of key acupoints in the body, self massage and mental development but has now been updated by combining Traditional Chinese Medicine with modern knowledge of anatomy, physiology and medical theory. Professor Zhang made a keen study of the classical theories of the Daoyin, Yangsheng and Longevity schools. He had inherited a family owned "Exercises for Chronic Diseases" from his maternal grandfather and started the development of modern Daoyin Yangsheng when he, himself, was severely ill. Basing his work on this huge wealth of traditional knowledge, Professor Zhang developed his new style to combine the methods of Daoyin with physical exercise and mental cultivation. It was through the use of this health system, so it is claimed, that the Professor overcame his own illnesses."

  3. Yu, Gongbao 余功保 (2006). 中国太极拳辞典 [Dictionary of Chinese Taijiquan] (in Chinese). Beijing: People's Sports Publishing House [zh]. p. 484. ISBN 978-7-5009-2879-9. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "【张广德】( 1932 ~ )养生学家。河北省唐山市人。 1963 年北京体育学院武术研究生毕业,留校任教。根据自己的研究和实践经验,创编“导引养生功”系列,在国内外具有广泛影响。于太极拳等武术领域也多有研究, 1996 年当选“中华武林百杰”。中国武术学会常委, ..."

     From Google Translate: "【Zhang Guangde】(1932 ~ ) Health preserver. Born in Tangshan City, Hebei Province. In 1963, he graduated from the Beijing Institute of Physical Education as a master of Wushu and stayed at the school to teach. Based on his own research and practical experience, he created the series of "Daoyin Health Preserving Exercises", which has a wide influence at home and abroad. In 1996, he was selected as one of the "Hundred Masters of Chinese Martial Arts". Member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese Wushu Association, ..."

  Cunard (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above. Taung Tan (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you to Cunard (talk · contribs) for his work on finding sources for this article and Dao Yin Yang Sheng Gong. I think it's clear that both of these articles are notable and linked together. Papaursa (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#4. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (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.