Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lý Thuần 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lý Thuần An

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

Non-notable government official in the Song dynasty. Looks like a genealogy entry. No information (including a birth or death date) on him other than his names and that he was a government official. His genealogy does not qualify as information on him as an individual. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no claim to notability. I couldn't find mention of the subject in either of the two online sources (based upon Google translate). While there might be other foreign-language material about the subject, without a means to verify I am not ok with presuming notability. Subject otherwise fails GNG and ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim to notability is this Chinese individual supposedly fathered Lý Thái Tổ (Lý Công Uẩn) who founded the Vietnamese Lý dynasty. If true, this has some nationalist implications, like how Barack Obama Sr. is notable especially in Kenya nowadays. However, according to the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư (an "official" Vietnamese history book written in Chinese) Lý Thái Tổ's father was a god who impregnated his mortal mother. This Lý Thuần An/Li Chun'an individual's name was only mentioned in a genealogical book recently discovered in Quanzhou (which is in coastal southeastern China and not at all close to Vietnam which borders southwestern China). In the book, Lý Công Uẩn was said to be in fact from Quanzhou and went to Vietnam for trade (which of course meant that the official Vietnamese claim of him being born in a Buddhist pagoda in Vietnamese territory was a lie). Is it believable? It's hard to say. For one, genealogical books in China aren't very historical accurate, at least compared to "official history" books. However, East Asian "official history" books aren't very trustworthy when it comes to origins of founding emperors either — being the son of a god was clearly nonsense, and it's possible Lý Công Uẩn was ethnic Chinese and claimed to be ethnic Vietnamese, just like how Shi Jingtang (I use the example since his son Shi Chonggui is mentioned in the article) claimed to be Chinese when he was almost certainly a Shatuo. Secondly, Quanzhou in the 10th century (as well as the centuries after that) was a semi-major port for foreign traders, and the likelihood of people immigrating from that place is probably higher than the rest of China except for border regions. That said, what should we do here? There are two solutions: A) merge to Lý Thái Tổ, which seems more sensible considering how short this article is, and B) Keep and rename to Li Chun'an since Chinese individuals shouldn't use Vietnamese romanizations of Chinese characters. Timmyshin (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lý Thái Tổ. There's little to no verifiable information about this person. --Antigng (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an argument that any human being from over 1000 years ago for whom we have any reliable information about ought to be included on Wikipedia. But back to our formal notability guidelines, I think the combination of the cited Chinese and Vietnamese sources would be sufficient to establish notability. Deryck C. 10:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and do not merge, since we've established so far that he is likely the son of Li Song (politician) and also and likely the father of Lý Thái Tổ. The fact that reliable sources have described both uncertain claims would make it appropriate to have a standalone article about this person, since there's no compelling reason to merge one way rather than the other. Deryck C. 10:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any evidence this is a hoax. If it is real, a known government official from 1000 years ago whose son was an emperor and was posthumously granted the rank of king seems suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved the article to Li Chun'an. Apparently he was the son of Li Song (politician) (if this is to be believed), getting more interesting.... Timmyshin (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lý Thái Tổ. While the person would be, I think, otherwise notable enough for an article if he existed, it is not clear that if he existed that he was actually Lý Công Uẩn's father; at best, it is from a disputable source (genealogy) that was not even a dynastic official(ly invented) account. This possible account can be noted in the son's article (in a sentence or two). --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genealogy book is kind of suspect, allegedly compiled in the Ming dynasty but probably reedited in the late Qing dynasty and only recently re-discovered. However, it does fit the 11th-century claim that Lý Thái Tổ was of Fujianese extraction: [1]: "交趾...其後國人共立閩人李公蘊為主". The book Dream Pool Essays may not be a historical source, but considering the author Shen Kuo served in the Song dynasty imperial government (as did his father and grandfather) and he was only 1-2 generations after Lý Thái Tổ, there is likely some basis to this rumor. About the possibility of him being Li Song (politician)'s son: "His entire family was executed..." at the end of that article is likely inaccurate as well. History of Song [2]: "漢末，崧被誅。至是，其子璨自蘇州常熟縣令赴調". So at least 1 son named Li Can escaped that bloodbath, likely to Southern Tang. But according to Sushui Jiwen [3]: "諫議大夫李宗詠，晉侍中崧之孫也... 崧之遇禍，粲猶在繈褓，其母投之墻外，身隨以出，由是獨免" there are no other survivors besides Li Can. But this Li Can's story is even harder to believe in my opinion. Timmyshin (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While genealogy books are suspect, it does concur with the general agreement that Lý Thái Tổ's father was of Fujian extraction. The amount of sources from both sides seems credible enough on a superficial inspection. I do share Timmyshin's concern with some of the possible inaccurate statement in the article. However, it appears that the article is of decent length, and if person in question was later given the title Hiển Khánh vương by Lý Thái Tổ, as taken from the Vietnamese wiki page, then it seems that the subject is historically significant enough to have an article. The problem with merging is whether or not he was really Lý Thái Tổ's father, which is apparently both agreed upon and disputed by the Vietnamese sources, so thus the page should be kept separate.TTTAssasinator (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lý Thái Tổ honoring his father posthumously as "Hiển Khánh vương" (顯慶王, "King Hiển Khánh") is definitely to be believed, as it's mentioned in official historiography like Khâm định Việt sử Thông giám cương mục and Đại Việt sử lược [4], and I don't know why anyone would lie about that. But I don't think a posthumous title alone is enough to establish notability. Timmyshin (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment someone needs to add this topic to Vietnam-related AFD discussions. Timmyshin (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How believable is that genealogical book? I compared the birth/death dates of Li Song (politician) and Lý Thái Tổ found in that book with dates found in more reliable sources:

Header text	Genealogical book (李莊厝內李氏房譜)	Official history
Li Song (politician)	Born: 19 April 883 (唐中和三年癸卯三月初九)	Unknown, but 883 is believable
Li Song (politician)	Died: 10 November 948 (後漢乾祐元年十月念七)	12 December 948 (乾祐元年戊申十一月甲寅)
Lý Thái Tổ	Born: 18 February 974 (北宋雍熙元年正月十四)	8 March 974 (太平五年二月十七日)
Lý Thái Tổ	Died: 7 November 1028 (天聖六年戊辰十月十八)	31 March 1028 (戊辰順天十九年三月戊戌)

So none of the dates are accurate, even though the years all match up correctly (Actually 雍熙元年正月 is technically incorrect, it should be 太平興國九年正月, though considering the distance from Quanzhou and [[[Central Plains]], making mistakes like that during an era name change is probably not unusual). Timmyshin (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please give further comments on whether this should be Keep - Delete or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dysklyver 15:46, 20 October 2017 (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.