Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Rongan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete, default to keep. The verifiability issue, as the principal issue for deletion, seems to have been addressed with the introduction of sources on April 25, and there's no clear consensus that a deletion is warranted on grounds of non-notability. Sandstein (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Rongan

Princess Rongan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I proposed this for deletion but someone said we shouldn't rely on the lack of internet sources to prove she isn't notable. There are no internet sources other than WP mirrors for this person, as far as I can tell. But it's not a question of notability so much as verifiability... there are no sources for this article, and it has been tagged for sourcing for 2 years. As far as I'm concerned it's a possible hoax until someone can provide a source... see WP:V, the burden is on people who want to keep the article to find sources, even if sources are hard to find, as they could be if this article isn't a hoax. If this isn't a hoax, I'm sorry it had to come to AFD to get people to provide sources... but it had been tagged for 2 years. There was plenty of time to avoid this. --Rividian (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • By the way, that link [1] appears to be just a copy of the Wikipedia article, anyway. Everything I've seen on her so far seems to use Wikipedia as the source. --Rividian (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. (EC) Please note that the subject is mentioned in the articles about her mother and father as well. It appears she did exist, but she died young. However, her father was emperor, her brother became emperor. I know notability is not inherited, but more to the point, a search of the Kanji characters listed for her name produces almost ten thousand hits in Chinese. The Google translation of the first hit here is enough for me to feel that the article shouldn't be deleted. I know that the translation can't be considered a reliable source, but perhaps the original link could be. I have notified WikiProject China to see if a specialist can give the article some attention. Oh, and I saw the China Mall page, I agree that came from WP. Xymmax (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect – To Xianfeng EmperorI agree with MaxCosta we do not need a separate article. However, I believe a redirect is justified. By the way, found one more source [2]. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I hate to keep saying this but that link also seems to be just a copy of the english WP article. The above chinese translation article does seem legitimate though... I suspect we need someone more familiar with the language to tell us how reliable the source is though. Whoever added this to the english Wikipedia may have been the first person to mention Rongan in English on the internet. --Rividian (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The only corroboration I can find is this passage from The Stone of Heaven: Unearthing the Social History of Imperial Green Jade. It tells of "rumors that while Emperor Xianfeng desperately needed an heir, he led a life of fruitless debauchery. By all accounts he was a sickly man who by 1855 had produced only one daughter by Li Fei, his favourite consort." If we could confirm her name then a redirect to Li Fei wouldn't be objectionable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ok, I have another couple of sources. Romanized spelling of Asian names is always an issue, and it seems that the preferred variant is "Rong-An" or "Rong 'An". Google books gives this hit here and another here; and I'll go ahead and add them to the article. Xymmax (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Evidence seems to point to the fact that she did exist and as a princess she is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what the current guidelines are for royalty articles, but it seems there's no claim to notability here except royalty. At any rate, I concede this shouldn't be deleted on verifiability grounds... so the only question is whether to redirect or keep as a standalone article. --Rividian (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. A source, without naming her, that references her as the daughter of the emperor. Whether this is kept or not depends on where we are on consensus about the inherent notability of royalty. Recent AfDs (and the ensuing DRV) have had a consensus that contemporary royalty are notable by the fact of being born into the royal family. As for historical royalty, I don't know. Pastordavid (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Helpful point. Just for clarity's sake, I'll mention that the source above is the same one cited by Dhartung above. Xymmax (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability, beyond being of royal birth. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Sure, she lived, as the link above proves, but the question is why does she need an article? What did she do that makes her notable? Dusticomplain/compliment 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


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.