Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Yong'an

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. Withdrawn by nominator after improvements by Folly Mox. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Yong'an[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show this meets WP:GNG, but that could be because of the language barrier. Current sourcing does not have enough information to show whether or not they pass WP:VERIFY, was draftified in hopes of improvement, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969: thanks for your work. We rooted out most of the trivial and fictitious stuff from the Three Kingdoms space feels like over a decade ago now. There is one very productive editor in the space – don't remember who – who uses this idiosyncratic citation style, but for a subject matter expert these are trivially verifiable online. Of course like everything else in the period it's been studied to pieces by later scholars but the early sources are already secondary and way easier to access. I don't have access to a physical copy of the Book of Jin anymore, but I've got a printed version of 三國志注 right here so I can get those citations into a state where they conform to house style more closely. I'll bold a keep or speedy keep here in a few hours once I tackle that. Folly Mox (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you do, and I'll withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I've improved the citation style of the article. I'm not able to get to the granularity of page numbers for the Book of Jin citations, but most people will be verifying in html anyway, where they're not preserved. Please let me know if there's anything else required. Thanks again. Folly Mox (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, they're probably busy. Keep I guess before I forget about this. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Not in reference to the article under discussion, but upon closer inspection it turns out a bunch of cruft and trivia has snuck back into some of our Three Kingdoms articles somehow over the past decade. 奈何 Folly Mox (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't get your ping. Thanks for the efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article already seems to demonstrate significant coverage in two sources and at least a bit of coverage in another source. The citation style looks unusual in a general English-language encyclopedia but is not too hard to understand if you're familiar with ancient Chinese history. There's coverage in modern sources too – here are a few that I found with a quick search: [1][2][3][4]. @Folly Mox: Thanks for working on cleaning up the citations. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:33, 8 April 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.