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The result was keep as withdrawn (non-admin closure) SD0001 ( talk) 08:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Bai Xiaoman

Bai Xiaoman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Catholic martyr and supposedly a saint. The topic is potentially notable, but the article cites no reliable sources, only a self-published website. I noted in an AfD I closed that the creator, Reesorville, lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10). The contents may be entirely made up or based on faith rather than any sources. Sandstein 19:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn because the necessary verification in the article has now been done by Anupam (thanks!). Sometimes AfD is in fact cleanup... Sandstein 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

You're welcome User:Sandstein! I'm glad I could help! Kind regards, Anupam ^Talk 17:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: This is a Roman Catholic saint and this article should be retained on Wikipedia. Although the article does not have much sources now, it can be expanded to include more. I will try myself to do this. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam ^Talk 19:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This user is attempting to delete lots of articles I wrote after I put a started a deletion review for a page that he deleted. I didn't mean anything personally against him when I started the deletion review and I hope he can see it like that. I think I probably relied upon a Chinese catholic website written in mandarin for this information many years ago, although obviously I didn't cite it; I can look around though. If there is a concern here that there is specific content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, I think the proper process to follow is that it should be specifically mentioned on the talk page and removed if it is challenged and sources cannot be found for it. On the other hand, to delete the entire article would mean that the page shouldn't exist at all on wiki, not even as a stub. There are certainly reputable sources, however, that confirm that Bai Xiaoman is a Catholic saint, hence the idea of deleting the entire article doesn't make a lot of sense. Reesorville ( talk) 20:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• obvious keep The most basic searching produces decent sources including one from Lehigh University Press which seems unimpeachable. This comes across as a bad faith nomination. Mangoe ( talk) 02:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep, and trout for the nominator. Deletion isn't cleanup, and this easily passes the GNG. Appears that the nomination is based on the author, not the content. CJK09 ( talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and trout Of course there are some issues with the creator's overall research style, but this is not the venue for that. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:06, 13 May 2020 (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.