Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhao Fujiang

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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Fujiang

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

This article has no independent sources and nothing that shows this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. It reads more like a tribute and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.Mdtemp (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There had been several additions made to this page, also citing and linking to various sources. Further read the edit made to the conversation ('talk') on Zhao Fuajing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see significant coverage by independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have included many links to independent sources at the bottom of the article. These include both memoirs of the man by different people, as well as articles written by him and by others about him and his work. As I have mentioned in the 'Talk' section of Zhao Fujiang's page, all of the available sources are in Chinese (you can aid yourself with Google Translate if you cannot read them, to get a general sense of things). These sources also vary by years. All of the information available on Zhao Fujiang's page is mentioned several times on those articles I've included links to.

As of now, this Wikipedia entry is the first major source for information about this teacher in English. This does not take away from his great contribution to the general community of Chinese martial arts practitioners - both in China and elsewhere in the world. One has to understand that because of the Cultural Revolution and the conservative attitude of the Chinese Communist Party, it took a lot of time for the information about notable martial arts masters from China to arrive in the West. This article is part of an overall effort by many martial arts teachers to bring forth more information and knowledge of those teachers whose lifetime contributions to the martial arts communities were significant. The lineage chart which I have included on the page (and also on Xingyiquan), in which master Zhao is evidently present, is also a part of that effort.

Zhao Fujiang had been, in his day, as influential as teachers like Yip Man. The reason the latter became more famous was because he happened to have one student whose name was Bruce Lee, which in turn brought him fame via alternative means and pushed for the making of several films of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I see this is Mr. Bluestein's article of primary interest, but the lack of independent sources does seem problematic and is a frequent problem with martial arts articles. Based on the article's sources and my own search, I don't see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:MANOTE. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, which is why lineage charts are irrelevant. Astudent0 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should never be the "first major source for information" as stated by the defender above. There should always be reliable, secondary sources to back up any Wikipedia article. The external links (note: not references or inline citations) largely fail WP:RS as they consist of YouTube links, blog and forum postings. I'm unable to find any significant (English language) coverage of the subject and thus, IMO, fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I understand your concerns, but I find this line of logic problematic. There are an endless amount of materials that relate to Chinese and Japanese cultures which have nothing written on them in English. Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia. Surely, as stated, one would want it to be able to base stuff on sources written in its native language. However, consider the following: When someone does research on a subject that has not been researched before, which relates to a foreign culture, one needs to first know that this subject exists! The way I see it, it is partly the role of Wikipedia (to a lesser extent of course) to enable people to become exposed to subjects and people they could not have otherwise be reading of. Do you understand the innate paradox which I am pointing to here?...

Consider for instance the page on Piguaquan. The traditional version of this art is probably not practiced by more than a few hundred people nowadays (though the Modern Wushu version is very common). Up until last year, when I wrote the first extensive article in the English language on this art, one could barely find ANY info on it in English (I am myself a practitioner of that art). But now, through this page, people know much more about this art, and this would help many to further their research. I have even taken the time to write a more extensive page on the art on the Hebrew version of Wikipedia...

The culture and community of traditional martial arts is a lively and interactive mesh of people, ideas and traditions. For many thousands of years, an endless amount of such traditions have been lost because people were bent on notions of secrecy and withdrawing knowledge from others. We now live in a different era. We now recognize in this community, that the arts and their traditions can only survive if we openly share information, in the broadest sense possible.

The legacy of a martial arts master goes beyond the scope of the factual details of his life. There is a lot of value and importance to the understanding of what and which were his roots, and what were the fruits of his labour and teachings.

The latter two arguments are what had led me to create the extensive Xing Yi Quan lineage-chart, which I had originally included on Xingyiquan, and later also on Zhao Fujiang's page. These things were not created and written down in order to glorify anyone's name or sell any sort of product - they exists so a myriad of important traditions could be preserved. I gather that it is difficult for someone who has not studied in-depth, in a traditional manner, one of the arts practiced by Zhao Fujiang, to understand this importance and significance I write of. Such matters relate to a very rich culture that is not well known to the general public, or even to avid martial artists who do not practice the traditional Chinese martial arts. But I nonetheless make a plea to your common sense - consider what I have suggested, for these are not empty words, and the grand endeavor of preserving the culture of traditional martial arts is solely for the benefit of future practitioners of these arts.

That said, I will see to try to make for more accurate references within the article itself, in the hope that this will suffice.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources and doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE, either. Perhaps the article can be saved off to the author's pages for further sourcing. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There's only one source currently on the article that could be considered reliable and that's the documentary/youtube link. I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it could potentially be a good source. The rest of the sources are not from reliable sources. However, one source doesn't make for significant coverage per WP:GNG. Transcendence (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (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.