- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zhuan Zhu (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)
Subject is not notable and BIO1E applies. I could find pre-Wikipedia sources like this and this but they only mention him as the assassin of King Liao. This seemingly can't be draftified and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a number of sources at the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias - have any of those been checked? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is frankly an odd nomination. It includes a search on Google Books on the string
Zhuan Zhu "專諸" which normally excludes English-only and Chinese-only sources, but despite that the search still return results as stated on the nom. Those are entries on a compilation of characters in Beijing Opera, showing that the story of this assassination is still being performed after 2,500 years (thus BIO1E does not apply). Another thing is the arbitrary cut-off criteria for "pre-Wikipedia sources", as if books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable. Even supposing that this page could not stand on its own, redirecting to Liao of Wu is a perfectly valid option and the "costly" argument is just nonsensical here. Searching on Google Books with the English (specifying "assassin" to filter out unrelated mentions) and Chinese separately gives pages upon pages of results, and for that I say keep. _dk (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is actually stating the opposite: They searched for "pre-Wikipedia" sources and found little of merit; they also searched for Wikipedia-era sources, the lack of both, per the nominator, leading to this AfD submission. Nowhere is it claimed or implied that "books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable." -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per _dk's comment Ominateu (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed and blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep What nonsense, AFD! A historical figure from ancient China and a regicide who played a key role in history is clearly notable. You should read the Chinese Wikipedia article first before opening an AFD discussion. Shame on you. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While prima facie the below looks like a clear keep, I cannot in good conscience close as 'keep' a debate on an article which has absolutely no references included. Relisting to ensure that if we keep this article, it is in a suitable condition to do so. While AfD is not cleanup, it's also not a suicide pact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge onto Liao of Wu since subject lacks distinct, independent notability. The opera is indeed well known. -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources have been added, and this seems to have a great deal of notability, considering there's book sources thousands of years after his life giving pages of coverage to him, in addition to a number of modern websites also having stories focused on him. "Merging" to Liao of Wu would likely equate to "redirecting", which would result in a loss of relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable and wanted topic (thousands of views in the past year; only a few people from 2.5 thousand years ago can claim that!). Meanwhile, if we actually did "merge" all this information to that article, the article would then be more focused on the assassin than the king its about! (Not to mention the Chinese Wikipedia has way more information as well.) Thus a standalone article is the best option. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What other-language Wikipedias are doing carries little to no weight as to how we proceed here. As to the predicted "imbalance" in the text in case this is merged to Liao of Wu, if this indeed proves to be an issue, it would be addressed in its own time per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SIZE, and WP:BALANCE. In the meantime, the search for significant, independent notability goes on. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The only way to correctly "balance" it out would be to have standalone pages (and as your main rebuttal, you misinterpret a minor point of my argument with an essay that doesn't really rebut it). As for whether he needs "significant, independent notability" of being an assassin, note that per WP:1E (the policy on that):
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
Wikipedia's policy literally uses this type of example as what is an appropriate standalone in this sort of event. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And how many as well as how strong notability-supporting sources do we obtain by the correct search? Not enough, really. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty, actually. See below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Once again, and without any more feeling than before, whatever notability can be scared up belongs to the assassination itself and the art works inspired by it; most notably the opera. Not the person per se. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet there's pages and pages and pages of works talking about him (e.g. this book with several pages on him, one of the first results) and the article gets several times as many views as the king he assassinated – all indications are that this is worthy of a standalone page. We could of course move this to "Zhuan Zhu's assassination of Liao of Wu", but the content wouldn't change any and it wouldn't look right because its a biography on a page that is not titled as a biography is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Consensus split between merge and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep He is a highly notable historical figure from the Spring and Autumn period. The article has been expanded, and a strong source, "The Biographies of Assassins," has been added. He is an example of a king killer, and King Helu honored him by holding a state funeral. In the modern era, a street is named after him, establishing a pagoda in his honor. Being a stub article is not a problem, and we don't want to lose such a valuable biography of such a notable figure. Thank you. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources in the article show that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 has done impressive work on expanding the article, clearly showing the subject's importance and notability such that a merge to Liao of Wu would be undue weight. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2024 (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.