Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dai Shiqi

Add links
Source: 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Shiqi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dai Shiqi (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)

PROD objected with an invalid reason that I cannot understand. No sources are provided online, fails GNG completely. Timothytyy (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:SECONDARY, no "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" can be seen. Timothytyy (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You added a large chunk of undigested information, but you still didn't provide anything that meets the secondary source requiement, i.e. the requiement of GNG. You said these sources are "strong indicators of notability for a Chinese diplomat as each of these sources are synthesis of facts from primary or secondary sources", so you consider them to be notable. Are you able to find these secondary sources? If not, I don't see why it passes GNG or ANYBIO. Timothytyy (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to dismiss either the Who's Who or A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons as being primary. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never said they were primary, I believe they are tertiary. However the tertiary sources didn't provide any sources to their claims, so we aren't reaching any secondary sources, which I believe is the only type of source that helps an article pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For both books, the Google Books snippet view does not show whether the entries cited any primary or secondary sources. The existence of any additional sources is immaterial since these two sources are sufficient.

reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)."

The "no original research" policy and the "notability for people" guideline demonstrate that these two national biographical dictionaries are perfectly acceptable in establishing notability.

Cunard (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Firstly, it is incorrect to treat the two books as a country's standard national biographical dictionaries as they are not even published by (not even in) the PRC or the CPC, the country which the subject comes from and serves. Therefore, it doesn't pass the
all BIO criteria are failed. Timothytyy (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That Dai Shiqi was covered in "Chinese persons" dictionaries published by Japanese and Taiwanese publishers is very significant in establishing notability, even more so than if he was covered in a "Chinese persons" dictionary published by a Chinese publisher. It means he received international coverage.

It is unclear whether Chinese Communist Who's Who and A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons are secondary sources or tertiary sources. But the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is very clear in saying that both secondary sources and tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.

If the biographical dictionaries are tertiary sources, Cunard (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tertiary sources can help establish notability, but according to GNG and BASIC, articles must have secondary sources to guarantee basic (i.e. presumed) notability. If we don't have secondary sources but only have 2 books which we don't know if fact-checking work is done due to the lack of references in them, we cannot ensure
reliablity
. For example, encyclopedias which doesn't list out references supporting their claims cannot provide notability as its accuracy can be challenged. This is why notability guidelines, e.g. GNG and BASIC, emphasize on secondary sources. The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. According to FAILN, anything that fails the notability criteria shall to be merged or deleted; as NOR is not an N guideline and it fails GNG due to the lack of secondary sources, I suggest a merge to the lists provided by Folly Mox, by gathering info provided by the sources, or a deletion.
GNG requires reliable secondary sources. If you believe a discussion on whether the sources are secondary or tertiary is necessary and my elaborations above are too simple, controversial, or problematic, I would be pleased to present my views more detailly. Thank you very much. Timothytyy (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The national dictionaries are reliable sources from reputable publishers. There is no requirement for reliable sources to cite sources in order to be considered reliable.

The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. – it is unclear whether the national dictionaries are secondary sources or tertiary sources. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from primary sources, the national dictionaries are secondary sources.

Cunard (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get why you mention the sources as "national dictionaries". Also, "if the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage" is just a very rough assumption, you don't even know whether the sources of these publications are 1. independent, 2. reliable, and 3. provide detailed coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are not independent, they are primary sources. If the sources are not reliable sources, the national dictionaries would not have relied on them. If the sources do not provide detailed coverage, then per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria multiple sources can be combined to establish notability.

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already.

Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, according to PRIMARY, primary sources may be independent, and according to SECONDARY, secondary sources are not necessarily independent. Secondly, I still don't understand why the sources about Chinese people written by non-governmental Taiwanese and Japanese people are considered as national biographies, and why reliability is assumed. Timothytyy (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected but maintain that these national biographies are reliable sources that can be used to establish notability regardless of whether they are secondary or tertiary sources based on Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I consider Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University [zh] and Kazankai [ja] to be reputable publishers. They are national biographies because of their scope. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(If you believe that these 2 sources are rooted with reliability, please find further sources that is secondary, which I would say is most preferred, which can conduct fact-checking.) Assuming their reliability, they are still encyclopedic and doesn't develop anything except the rigid history of the person, so I believe they are tertiary. I still root on general notability guidelines, I.e. GNG and BASIC. If the discussion didn't change the wordings of GNG and BASIC, the most basic guidelines, at all, I wouldn't say it is accepted by the community. Consensus isn't that strong after all. Timothytyy (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dai Shiqi was a Chinese ambassador in the 1980s and 1990s to Equatorial Guinea and Peru. It is very difficult to find sources for a Chinese ambassador whose tenure was in the pre-Internet era in South America and West Africa. He could have been covered by pre-Internet, offline Chinese, Peru, or Equatorial Guinea sources, but those are very hard to find. What we have is significant coverage in two national biographies published by a reputable Taiwanese publisher and a reputable Japanese publisher. I consider that sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I cannot see any possible significant events which may bring the subject SIGCOV. Even if there is, they might not be reliable. Also, let us gather other users' opinions, because I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Timothytyy (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Espresso Addict (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to ping indviduals as it can be seen as
    WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me guess what Espresso Addict will !vote, since they removed the prod. "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions"
    WP:APPNOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

    The editor who proposed the article for deletion is the AfD nominator so is already aware of the discussion and does not need to be pinged. The only other involved editor is the one who removed the proposed deletion. I noticed that the article creator has not been notified so I will notify them on their talk page.The article creator archived the notifications.

    I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is better to err on the side of caution and not notify other editors of AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that concerned editors should be notified so long as the canvassing guideline is not violated. AfDs frequently have few participants, so informing concerned editors helps lessen that problem. Cunard (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. [I was already aware of this AfD before Cunard's ping] Cunard's sources do look sufficiently in-depth to meet GNG to me. Generally I'd prefer to keep articles on Chinese topics as we have a real problem with systematic bias but I won't issue a formal vote in the circumstances. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Espresso, this is why I think pinging is unnecessary. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll let ReplyTool figure it out. Feel free to refactor.
    Cunard's sources both seem reliable and independent, and each contributes to notability. My initial BEFORE was not adequate, so I'll look again on my own later (hopefully today?). I would translate the title of the first source as Who's Who in Communist China, and note that google translate guesses the language of the second source incorrectly. It's Japanese, but with a very high proportion of kanji, indicating little verb conjugation and few other particles. It's probably written in a very brief style like a list rather than full regular prose sentences (I can't read Japanese). Google translate does a little better job with that one if you feed it the correct starting language.
    Hoping to get back to this soon; already switched to keep above. Folly Mox (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reviewing the sources, for the better translation for the first source's title, and for the correction about the second source being in Japanese with a high proportion of kanji. I've fixed updated the citation templates in my comment. It was difficult to find significant coverage for Dai Shiqi (simplified Chinese: 戴诗琪; traditional Chinese: 戴詩琪), so it is unsurprising your WP:BEFORE did not find them. To find these sources, I searched for "Dai Shiqi", "戴诗琪" (his simplified Chinese name), and "戴詩琪" (his traditional Chinese name) and went through several dozen Google Books results that were passing mentions before I found these two sources.

    Cunard (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think this barely scrapes by based on Cunard's sources. It might be considered borderline, but I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping in this case because, as mentioned above, most sources will be offline or otherwise hard to find for a diplomat who was active before the 21st century. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:33, 29 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dai_Shiqi&oldid=1220469811"