Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Congke

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. Synergy 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li Congke

It might not quite be unsalvageably incoherent, but it is close. Looks like a bad machine translation. Can't identify enough key facts to determine notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps this could be cleaned up. It appears that this is a minor Chinese Emperor. But going through the process here is worthwhile. The decision here can likely be applied to Li Conghou. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per Google books search, e.g. [1]; article is in hopeless shape though. JJL (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--if this is truly in hopeless shape (and I got a headache just thinking about editing it), why keep it? I mean, 'hopeless' is 'without hope.' Drmies (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the subject appears to be notable, so I'd say reduce it to a stub and hope that someone will someday improve it. JJL (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it Subject definitely seems to meet WP:N, but the article is nigh incomprehensible and seems to rely on a whole bunch of missing/deleted templates. It looks to me like someone ran an older version of the Chinese wikipedia article on this guy through babelfish or some other auto-translator and pasted in in here without checking anything. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stubbed it and dealt with most of the templates. I don't know how to deal with the emperorcn template, so have left it. Hopefully this form will be OK. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jesus H. Christ, the guy was an emporer - I'm not sure how else to discuss notability. 12:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep The man was emperor of China, so he is obviously notable, and the article has several sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A Google Books search confirms that he was an emperor, showing obvious notability. I wish people would spend a few seconds doing basic searches before wasting everyone's time by nominating articles such as this for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2008 (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.