- 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The result was Withdrawn * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
1768 China sorcery panic
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 1768 China sorcery panic ( | 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)
This article appears to be based mostly or entirely on a single source, to the point that it may qualify as copyright infringement. Whether the stated topic is notable is questionable; few sources other than the one used discuss it in any detail. As I noted in a previous discussion on this page, it's possible that the book itself is notable, but for the time being I'd suggest just deleting this page.
SilverStar54 (
talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. SilverStar54 ( talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article was created in 2020 by a student editor with 29 edits: all except the few statutory student guided-tour edits are on this article, and all were made between March and June 2020. No substantial edits (beyond gnomish fixes) have been made to the article since. All but 5 of the 51 citations are to Philip A. Kuhn's 1990 book Soulstealers. Kuhn makes clear this is a study, a single example of a sorcery panic; the other sources indicate similar witch-hunts around the world, and closely-similar "queue"- (pigtail-) stealing incidents at other times in China. Even Kuhn, therefore, does not assert that the 1768 incident that he uses as an example is "notable" in Wikipedia's terms: it is not, as nobody else has chosen to write about it. On the other hand, Witch-hunt is certainly notable, and is a reasonable redirect target. An alternative would be to create a stubby article from this one, Queue-cutting sorcery panics in China, giving the four dates (1768, 1810, 1867, and 1908) and trying to say a little (in balance) about each one. I'll support either the redirect or the reshaping as folks prefer; both solutions will result in most of the material here being cut. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Crime,
Paranormal, and
Religion.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd happily withdraw my nomination if someone volunteers to rewrite the page. If we're giving it a new title and substantially changing the content, it might make sense to
WP:BLOWITUP and start over at the new location (perhaps that's what you were suggesting), especially since the content here could violate copyright.
SilverStar54 (
talk) 16:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what we should do. Fancy collaborating on that? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd happily withdraw my nomination if someone volunteers to rewrite the page. If we're giving it a new title and substantially changing the content, it might make sense to
WP:BLOWITUP and start over at the new location (perhaps that's what you were suggesting), especially since the content here could violate copyright.
SilverStar54 (
talk) 16:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Seems to meet GNG. It has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Srnec (
talk) 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Srnec - one RS does not make a topic notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep easily meets
WP:GNG, in that it has substantial coverage in at least three reliable sources. The state of the article should be irrelevant here as it's adequately sourced with inline citations.At the time the AfD was started it had three sources including the Kuhn book. @
Chiswick Chap why are you discounting the Chinese-language articles? Chang Shih-Ying's article is entirely about the article topic, and the Su Ping article devotes about three pages to this incident. I've added a fourth, from Kyoto University, it has a DOI number but I can't tell if it's a journal article or a research paper. I can verify through Google Translate that it's about the 1768 incident, and notably it predates the Kuhn book by three years.
Oblivy (
talk) 01:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the non-Kuhn sources rightly look at ALL the panics, not just Kuhn's example, and that the notable subject is the set if them, not one instance. We'll do much better to follow the sources evenly, not give a near-COPYVIO Kuhnfest in UNDUE detail.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 01:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Su Ping talks about two panics, one in 1768 and one in 1876. That, plus some analysis, is the entirety of the article, and three pages (nearly 3000 characters) of Chinese text is not de minimis coverage. Chang Shih-Ying is about the queue generally and draws both on Kuhn and Su Ping as well as other materials (apologies for misstating this earlier) but we're talking about notability not verifiability so I don't see that as an issue.
Oblivy (
talk) 02:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The notable topic is the panics, plural, and there is precisely nothing stopping us from changing the scope to that. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 06:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Su Ping talks about two panics, one in 1768 and one in 1876. That, plus some analysis, is the entirety of the article, and three pages (nearly 3000 characters) of Chinese text is not de minimis coverage. Chang Shih-Ying is about the queue generally and draws both on Kuhn and Su Ping as well as other materials (apologies for misstating this earlier) but we're talking about notability not verifiability so I don't see that as an issue.
Oblivy (
talk) 02:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the non-Kuhn sources rightly look at ALL the panics, not just Kuhn's example, and that the notable subject is the set if them, not one instance. We'll do much better to follow the sources evenly, not give a near-COPYVIO Kuhnfest in UNDUE detail.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 01:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Does seem to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawn - Sounds like there are more reliable sources on this topic than I realized. I like @ Chiswick Chap's proposal to make this article about all of the queue-cutting panics. After this is closed I plan to start a move discussion.
- SilverStar54 ( talk) 16:08, 2 April 2024 (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.
- 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 Withdrawn * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
1768 China sorcery panic
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 1768 China sorcery panic ( | 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)
This article appears to be based mostly or entirely on a single source, to the point that it may qualify as copyright infringement. Whether the stated topic is notable is questionable; few sources other than the one used discuss it in any detail. As I noted in a previous discussion on this page, it's possible that the book itself is notable, but for the time being I'd suggest just deleting this page.
SilverStar54 (
talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. SilverStar54 ( talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article was created in 2020 by a student editor with 29 edits: all except the few statutory student guided-tour edits are on this article, and all were made between March and June 2020. No substantial edits (beyond gnomish fixes) have been made to the article since. All but 5 of the 51 citations are to Philip A. Kuhn's 1990 book Soulstealers. Kuhn makes clear this is a study, a single example of a sorcery panic; the other sources indicate similar witch-hunts around the world, and closely-similar "queue"- (pigtail-) stealing incidents at other times in China. Even Kuhn, therefore, does not assert that the 1768 incident that he uses as an example is "notable" in Wikipedia's terms: it is not, as nobody else has chosen to write about it. On the other hand, Witch-hunt is certainly notable, and is a reasonable redirect target. An alternative would be to create a stubby article from this one, Queue-cutting sorcery panics in China, giving the four dates (1768, 1810, 1867, and 1908) and trying to say a little (in balance) about each one. I'll support either the redirect or the reshaping as folks prefer; both solutions will result in most of the material here being cut. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Crime,
Paranormal, and
Religion.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd happily withdraw my nomination if someone volunteers to rewrite the page. If we're giving it a new title and substantially changing the content, it might make sense to
WP:BLOWITUP and start over at the new location (perhaps that's what you were suggesting), especially since the content here could violate copyright.
SilverStar54 (
talk) 16:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what we should do. Fancy collaborating on that? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd happily withdraw my nomination if someone volunteers to rewrite the page. If we're giving it a new title and substantially changing the content, it might make sense to
WP:BLOWITUP and start over at the new location (perhaps that's what you were suggesting), especially since the content here could violate copyright.
SilverStar54 (
talk) 16:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Seems to meet GNG. It has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Srnec (
talk) 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Srnec - one RS does not make a topic notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep easily meets
WP:GNG, in that it has substantial coverage in at least three reliable sources. The state of the article should be irrelevant here as it's adequately sourced with inline citations.At the time the AfD was started it had three sources including the Kuhn book. @
Chiswick Chap why are you discounting the Chinese-language articles? Chang Shih-Ying's article is entirely about the article topic, and the Su Ping article devotes about three pages to this incident. I've added a fourth, from Kyoto University, it has a DOI number but I can't tell if it's a journal article or a research paper. I can verify through Google Translate that it's about the 1768 incident, and notably it predates the Kuhn book by three years.
Oblivy (
talk) 01:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the non-Kuhn sources rightly look at ALL the panics, not just Kuhn's example, and that the notable subject is the set if them, not one instance. We'll do much better to follow the sources evenly, not give a near-COPYVIO Kuhnfest in UNDUE detail.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 01:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Su Ping talks about two panics, one in 1768 and one in 1876. That, plus some analysis, is the entirety of the article, and three pages (nearly 3000 characters) of Chinese text is not de minimis coverage. Chang Shih-Ying is about the queue generally and draws both on Kuhn and Su Ping as well as other materials (apologies for misstating this earlier) but we're talking about notability not verifiability so I don't see that as an issue.
Oblivy (
talk) 02:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The notable topic is the panics, plural, and there is precisely nothing stopping us from changing the scope to that. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 06:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Su Ping talks about two panics, one in 1768 and one in 1876. That, plus some analysis, is the entirety of the article, and three pages (nearly 3000 characters) of Chinese text is not de minimis coverage. Chang Shih-Ying is about the queue generally and draws both on Kuhn and Su Ping as well as other materials (apologies for misstating this earlier) but we're talking about notability not verifiability so I don't see that as an issue.
Oblivy (
talk) 02:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the non-Kuhn sources rightly look at ALL the panics, not just Kuhn's example, and that the notable subject is the set if them, not one instance. We'll do much better to follow the sources evenly, not give a near-COPYVIO Kuhnfest in UNDUE detail.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 01:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Does seem to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawn - Sounds like there are more reliable sources on this topic than I realized. I like @ Chiswick Chap's proposal to make this article about all of the queue-cutting panics. After this is closed I plan to start a move discussion.
- SilverStar54 ( talk) 16:08, 2 April 2024 (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.