Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping

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 Merge. It seems like there is a consensus not to delete. Which article to merge into which can be settled on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuyeping[edit]

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

Merge to Zhuyeping, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Aside from being a duplicate, I have to say that I am disgusted by the creator's decision to mass-create articles using AWB. This article has barely any useful information, other than 'it exists'. It's been a 13 word stub for six plus years now, and I shudder to think of how many other equally useless quality articles this person has created. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in reverse. Zhuyeping, Sangzhi should merge into [[Zhuyeping because the Sangzhi part of the name is redundant. There is no need to disambiguate this article so simply Zhuyeping is sufficient. I would possibly say delete for both articles on notability grounds. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge existing human settlements are basically inherently notable, so no deleting please. see WP:NPLACE. agree with Rincewind42, "Zhuyeping" should be title of surviving article, not "Zhuyeping, Sangzhi". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 15:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge of Zhuyeping, Sangzhi into Zhuyeping, per Rincewind42 and the fact that the latter was created before the former. Besides this, per WP:BEFORE, why are we having a deletion discussion where the nomination is to propose a merge outcome? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:18, 12 December 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.