Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concubine Rong

Concubine Rong[edit]

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Concubine Rong (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)

ADraft:Concubine Rong exists. This article was moved to draft but the editor ignored the draft and restarted an article recreated the article. This should be deleted as it is circumventing the NPP process. Bruxton (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and China. Bruxton (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The draftification process should not have been ignored by the original article creator here. BD2412 T 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Editors are allowed to object to a draftification per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and no other reason has been provided to delete the article. Seems sourced, can't verify as they seem to be WP:OFFLINESOURCES located in the First Historical Archives of China (per the zh article which has more details regarding the sources) ebut WP:AGF. Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but this was not a WP:DRAFTOBJECT - the original page was moved to draft during NPP and the original page was deleted R2. Rather than objecting or discussing the editor ignored the drafted page and recreated the page and it came up at NPP again. Deleting this page is a matter of housekeeping. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying to delete this so we can move the draft pace article back to the main space? In that case a WP:HISTMERGE can solve this without a need for deletion. Jumpytoo Talk 20:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo and Mx. Granger: If someone with permissions wants to approve the drafted article. This one came before NPP and I recalled that I had previously sent it to draft. Draft:Concubine Rong. Bruxton (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – seems to be notable, and the drafting process is not required (WP:DRAFTOBJECT). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this appears to be notable by the zh sources, and per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, the draft process is not required. Recreating the page is an attempt to object, even if the editor did not do so "correctly". No copyright issues, as there was only one substantial author to the draft article. The draft can probably be redirected to the mainspace article. HouseBlaster^talk 15:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: NPP is tough work, and situations like this create more work for reviewers, AfD participants and admins. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is not a policy or guideline it is an essay. And it specifically says: If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace. None of that happened. Bruxton (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: I am well aware that NPP is tough work. I am a NPR myself. Yes, this creates more work for us. But this version of the article has an additional paragraph not present in the draft. As I said, this topic appears to be notable. If this is deleted, we are harming the encyclopedia by deleting good content for purely bureaucratic reasons. The quote above instructs the editor performing the draftification to move the page back to the mainspace, if an editor raises an objection. It does not say that someone has to explicitly object for the page to be moved back to the namespace. HouseBlaster^talk 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: it is an essay. We should use our policies and guidelines. The paragraph can be moved to the draft. Much simpler. Bruxton (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: or it could stay in the mainspace, which would save someone at AfC and NPP from reviewing it again. HouseBlaster^talk 00:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AfD is a forum for establishing notability, not addressing user conduct. The entry should not have been sent here if the objection is procedural and not about the topic’s notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987: I was previously advised by an admin that this was the correct procedure. But I have begun a discussion at NPP talk today. See discussion here: NPP discussion Bruxton (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inappropriate deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict?)Keep -- The content of the article is somewhat slender of content, other than her promotions within the imperial court. She was outranked by 3 empresses; 4 more senior concubines (all with articles) and had three others of similar rank, of whom one other has an article. Procedural deficiencies are not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are duplicates, of course they must be merged or redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (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.