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. Bucketsofg 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common Chinese surnames[edit]

List of common Chinese surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I would like to renominate List of common Chinese surnames for deletion as per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:WINAD. Wikipedia is not genealogical database and this article has little encyclopedic value. Furthermore, it is questionably to list surnames in Korean and Vietnamese according to how common the corresponding names are in the PRC.--Niohe 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I cannot see what the frequency in PRC has to do with Chinese surnames in general, something that this article purports to discuss. In the explantion of the statistics for 2006, it states that it is based on information from 1100 counties and cities in the whole of China. Last time I checked, China had more than 2000 counties and usually statistics from China include the PRC only. If you claim that Taiwan is included, the burden of proof is on you not me.
You seem to think that I just dislike this article. Actually, I do like the article and realize that it can be useful, but this article belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It has already been moved to Wiktionary, where it belongs.--Niohe 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above really takes away from the fact that this list is a researched and published list in real life. The article is not a list with no other information than a listing, it's not even a list that's been compiled by WP editors. It's also not a genealogy, as it makes no mention of any people. None of what you've said also takes away from the fact that the article provides comparative rankings on commonality of these surnames, something that, in real life, is not found in a dictionary, but in a published list of common Chinese surnames. Lastly, like I've said many times already, the PRC and naming issue is not criteria to delete at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think you are misrepresenting the two policies quoted and I refer to my response to HongQiGong above.--Niohe 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had read your response prior to my comment. From the thread I see that you brought no counterarguments against HongQiGong's argument that the excerpt on genealogical entries is inapplicable. And also, there are no separate dictionaries for definitions, pronunciation, and grammar--all of these things are included in a dictionary. "Dictionaries" for frequency of use and other information have a more appropriate name--encyclopedias. -- Black Falcon 02:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we stand very far apart in our interpretations of the two above-mentioned policies, I'll leave it at that. It does, however, seem that I am not alone and I will leave it to other editors to weigh in on the matter. To me, this article looks like half-way between a frequency list and a pronunciation table, and as it happens, the most exhaustive treatment of frequency lists can be found on Wiktionary.--Niohe 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we do. Also, there is no article at the link you provided. -- Black Falcon 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The argument that the article should be kept "as per WP:LIST" is assuming what it should prove, i.e. the utility of an article on every single Chinese surname. I read WP:LIST and it is clearly designed to help people create lists of biographies, countries, species and the like. I just had a look at a couple of the articles on Chinese surnames and all they do is to list the pronunciation and the list number of people called Xu, for instance. They almost looks like disambiguation pages and some of the pages actually are disambiguation pages, like Wei. If this discussion leads to the deletion of a couple of empty article on surnames, all the better.
The argument that the list is useful is not an argument by itself. A phone directory or a top 10 list may be useful, but we don't include them in encyclopedias.--Niohe 12:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The last delete vote may not have been very exhaustive, but if you read the contributions carefully, you will find that the points have been addressed. Perhaps you should engage more constructively with the arguments for deletion, rather than just state that the reasons are "not valid."--Niohe 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many valid reasons. You have to read all the comments and replies to get all of them though. Usedup 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of them really address the fact that this list has comparative commonality rankings from both 2006 and 1990. What I mean is, a reader can look at the list and see, for example, that X is ranked 10th, as compared to Y, which is 11th, and a reader can look at the list and see, also, that X is ranked 10th in 2006, but was ranked 15th in 1990, whereas Y was ranked 14th in 1990. That's encyclopedic. The fact is, this article is neither a genealogical article, nor does it serve a dictionary function. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the delete votes up to this point (above): Nominator's "not a genealogical database"; WP:WINAD; "per above"; an opinion on the encylcopedic nature of the ranked list; and WP:WINAD again. The WP:WINAD argument is becoming overused in AFD discussions for any list, without understanding the principle behind the rule, and I decided to call out anyone who wants to claim WP:WINAD to back it up. This is not genealogical (as the nominator proposed) as no biographic info is on this page. It is not a directory of businesses (obviously). That leaves us with "loosely associated topics", which is in WINAD as a deterrent to the "me too" lists of every time that a left-handed actor sneezed in a film. A researched list of surnames from a country's census or what not is not loosely associated information. So far, the only reasonable argument for deletion is Dmcdevit's "unencyclopedic". To argue whether it is encylcopedic or not is valid; to try to fit this square peg article into the round WP:WINAD hole is not. Neier 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to AQu01rius - That was a very inappropriate remark and I encourage you to reconsider what you are saying. Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy and you are not supposed to use other editor's real or imagined national origins to discredit their contributions. That applies to you just like everybody else. I expect an apology.--Niohe 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While his comment may have been worded a bit harshly, I think that his central point has merit: Chinese surnames are endowed with more meaning than surnames in many other cultures, and this list could be improved to reflect that.--Danaman5 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be anal about it, I don't think we should say that Chinese surnames are "endowed with more meaning". I just think that Chinese culture takes surnames more seriously than say, the cultures of western or English-speaking countries. The fact that there's a published and researched list of common Chinese surnames is pretty much evident of that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Niohe, please note that User:AQu01rius did not suggest any deliberate wrong-doing on the part of any editors (this would have been a violation of WP:AGF). He only wrote that some editors do "not seem to understand the cultural significance of Chinese surnames". This is hardly an insult or a personal attack. Again, note that the wording does not imply any malice on the part of delete voters, rather misunderstanding or lack of understanding. I think you read too much into his comment (I'm not saying deliberately) and you should not "expect an apology (as you have written) if you assume good faith about User:AQu01rius. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't gloss this over, please. To insinuate that editors do not understand the significance of this discussion because they are not Chinese is a personal attack. Arguments should be considered on their own merits, period. Furthermore, this is not a debate about significance of Chinese surnames, but about deletion policy. We do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures.--Niohe 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do agree that the phrasing made it an ad hominem argument and the point would have come across equally or better as "Chinese surnames have a particular cultural significance" (I don't know whether this is true or false). My point was that I don't think User:AQu01rius's comments were directed against editors or were made in bad faith. You are of course right that "Arguments should be considered on their own merits, period." As for your other point that "we do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures"--this is true. But we should consider topics that have a "special significance" (if indeed they do), whether the topic is related to Chinese (or any other) culture or to microbiology. I think User:AQu01rius's point, simply stated, is that "Chinese surnames" are an important, notable, and encyclopedic topic. -- Black Falcon 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that the real reason this article was nominated for deletion, that User:Niohe thinks this article is created out of a "seperate policy for matters Chinese"? Heck, if someone in real life researched and published a book on the most common English surnames with their ranking of commonality, and an editor wrote an article based on that, I would think the same, that such an article deserves to exist in WP. Furthermore, please see WP:BIAS. The possibility that Chinese surnames holds more significance in Chinese culture than English surnames do in English-speaking cultures is something that must be taken into consideration. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - It seems that we are talking past each other, so I will try again.

  1. No one has said that this article consists of "loosely associated topics", neither is anyone denying that it is based on a credible source. But that does not make this article encyclopedic; the fact that it is useful or interesting does not make it encyclopedic. A telephone directory is sourced, contains interesting data on the frequency of surnames and is very useful. But it is not encyclopedic. A dictionary can list the pronunciation of several Chinese characters, but that does not make it into an encyclopedia.
  2. As to whether Chinese surnames are more important than "Western surnames" (whatever that is) has no bearing whatsoever on the question whether there should be a separate article listing the hundred most common surnames by frequency. This is a policy question and not a question of different cultures. I'm looking at you, HongQiGong.
  3. No one is denying that there should be an article on Chinese surnames. Neither has anyone denied that certain Chinese surnames may be the topic of separate articles. But no one has so far put forward any convincing argument why we should have a special list with Chinese surnames, many of the articles that the present page link to are not even articles. Many of them look more like disambiguation pages, and some of them actually are disambiguation pages: Mai, Wei, Shi. There is even a special project devoted to the creation Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese surnames, where the to-do-list runs as follows: "1. It must be an interwiki link to an article which satisfies WP:NOT. No redlinks. 2. Individual must have that surname. (Not as a given name.) 3. The individual's article must show the full Chinese name to support inclusion in the list." Can anyone tell me what is going on here? A Wikiproject for the creation of dictionary entries and disambiguation pages? I'm not saying that their work is worthless, but it is misplaced. We have Wiktionary and that's where their work belongs. There is an excellent summary of the differences between Wiktionary and Wikipedia articles here and how that applies to articles on family names.
  4. Some of you have asked why some of the oppose votes only quote the WP:WINAD without further comment. My explanation is that the reason for deletion is obvious, and that most people who are in favor in keeping this article either do not understand Wikipedia policy or the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If this vote fails, I will take this to arbitration and the article will be deleted.--Niohe 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niohe, comments like "If this vote fails, I will take this to arbitration and the article will be deleted" approach WP:POINT. The only reasons that you provided for deletion were WP:WINAD and WP:NOT#DIR.
OK, so it's all about me again? In what way am I "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"?--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the former, it has already been noted (and even agreed upon in the original AfD containing this article) that this article contains information beyond what would belong merely in a dictionary. Thus, WP:WINAD is by and large inapplicable.
  • I and other editors have already stated why we find this list stumblingly close to a dictionary. I am loath to repeat it.--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the latter, WP:NOT#DIR excludes three classes of articles:
  1. "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" -- which this article is not, as you yourself stated above.
  2. "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business" -- again, inapplicable as this is a list of names but not a business directory.
  • You're only quoting part of the paragraph it also says: Wikipedia is not the white pages. (Emphasis in original.)--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries" -- this point applies only to biographical articles: the section reads "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety". (emphasis added)
  • Well, as I have already pointed out, this page reads like a list of disambiguation pages. What is the purpose of that?--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said above that we stand "far apart in our interpretations" of the two policies, but whereas I have suggested my reasoning behind my interpretation, you have only noted the policy (your comment to HongQiGong on this matter was "you are also misreading WP:NOT#DIR, which covers a much wider range of articles that should not be in Wikipedia" and nothing else). Whether this article is kept or deleted is a matter of consensus. You may take it to DRV (although you wrote arbitration, I assume that's what you meant), but the only purpose of DRV is to determine whether an AfD discussion was appropriately closed. For the most part, it should not include arguments about the merits and/or failures of an article. -- Black Falcon 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're "looking at me"? LOL. I'm only responding to your thinking that some special exception or rule is made for the Chinese, and that's why this article exists or that people are voting to keep this article. If that is really your motivation for nominating this article in the first place, it smacks of WP:BIAS. The fact is that this article is not just a simple listing. It's an article about the 100 most common Chinese surnames. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's all about me now, how constructive. Now I stand accused for WP:BIAS for having said that "...this is not a debate about the significance of Chinese surnames, but about deletion policy. We do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures." Perhaps you should read the whole article and not just the first three lines on the origins of bias. There's food for thought for everybody there, but that is not what the discussion is about.--Niohe 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. I'm referring to when you said, "We do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures". And the "origins of bias" explains that the demographics of most English WP editors is very homogeneous - thus explains why some editors may not understand the importance of Chinese surnames. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about understanding the importance of Chinese surnames, but Wikipedia policy. And just to satisfy your curiosity: I'm not a native English speaker and I did not grow up in an English-speaking country.--Niohe 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I'm not talking about you specifically. I can tell from your contrib history that you have a working understanding of Chinese culture. This is just a reference to your initial exchange with User:AQu01rius, where s/he stated that some of the deleting votes come from people that may not understand the importance of surnames in Chinese culture. I agree that it's irrelevant to the deletion itself, and at the same time I don't think this article ought to have been nominated because an editor feels that it was created out of some "seperate" rule for something that is Chinese. Like I said, if a similar list is researched and published in real life for English surnames, and there was an article about it, I would support keeping such an article, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niohe. No, it's not about you. It's not about any of us. But stating that you will take this to DRV or arbitration if the consensus is not in your favor does seem like a form of "disruption". Wikipedia operates based on consensus. Sometimes it's on our side, other times it's not. I realize that this article is in many respects similar to what might be found in a dictionary (Wiktionary). However, let's also please realize that this article also contains addiitonal information that would not be found in most dictionaries. Yes, Wikipedia is not the white pages. Nor is this! This is not a list of individuals--which is what the white pages is. Finally, I have no idea what reading "like a list of disambiguation pages" has anything to do with genealogical or phonebook entries. To sum up, I hope you do not take my (or others') comments personally. They are not directed against you. They are directed against the arguments and the statements you have written. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Yuan is actually not one of the top surnames in China (Being the 37th), and it already have such extensive history of origin. According to the "deletion logic" I am receiving, a bad, short article that's not verified should be deleted right away, regardless of the subject's potential encyclopedic value? Many users are ignoring this line in WP:AFD: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. ". Read on and it says "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.". Now tell me, are the surname stubs hopeless cases? If you think so, then look at Yuan (surname) again, but look at earlier versions. There are differences between articles that requires work, and articles that should be deleted.
Since Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames is referred to, let's read the first lines of the Conclusion:

"# An article on a surname is encyclopedic if the name has significant history to it, other than genealogy and etymology". Every Chinese surnames have significant history, and that point should not be ignored.

I think the argument is going off-topic. Our main focus should be on whether this list should be kept. I've already expressed my point on that. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have stubs? Again, please do not confuse articles with subjects. A subject with encylopedia value may have a terrible article entry, but should be expanded, not deleted. Let me paraphrase: "The article is short, therefore it's not encyclopedic, and should be deleted". Is that it?
Pick a surname article, and I'll expand it. Right now your sole reason to delete surname articles is that "they are short, and I don't see (and don't know) anything encyclopedic value in it".

AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not confusing articles with subjects; the onus of expanding a lousy article lies on the person who created it or wants to keep it. What gets my goat about this whole surname project is that it is (1) entirely focused on increasing the quantity of surname related articles and (2) based on a number of questionable assumptions about Chinese history.
First, if the proponents of these articles focused on creating a small number of solid articles on a selected group of Chinese surnames, it would be easier to argue for an expansion of the project. I started to notice this when a number of biographies on I created got tagged with stuff like "This article is about person with the Chinese surname Chen." At first, I thought this was part of a project that was designed to improve Chinese biographies, but after a while I noticed that all the surname project managed to do was to create empty articles and lists, with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. This was several months ago, and I think it is time to ask where this project is taking Wikipedia.
Second, many of these articles confuse myths with history. I perfectly aware of the fact many people in China place great importance on surnames and that certain surnames carry special meaning for people. But the fact that a certain name can be traced back two or three thousand years back in history does not necessarily mean that all people bearing this same surname today have anything more in common than their surname. Anyone who is familiar with Chinese history or anthropology knows that claims of common ancestry should be taken with great deal of caution.
But fair enough, try expanding Wang (surname) for starters.--Niohe 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to User:Pan Dan: This is one of the main differences in Chinese surname. The clan history is largely associated with the surname, and cannot be excluded. This is also why the Chinese surname articles on Wikipedia cannot be completely transwikied to Wiktionary, because the Wiktionary is supposed to include the pronounciation and brief outline/definition only, NOT the history of the surname (see wikt:WT:ELE).
  • Can you fix your link? I don't know what policy you're referring to. Pan Dan 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing the link. I think the history of the surname would go under the Etymology section in a Wiktionary article. (I agree that the sections on the history of the Yuan clans would not be appropriate for Wiktionary.) Your conception of a Wiktionary article as necessarily "brief" contradicts Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pan Dan 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to User:Niohe: Original research? Which part? Please bring up your concern in the article's talk page instead of here. And do you mean that non-English sources are original research? Where in the WP:NOR does it say so, or is just your own opinion? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with Chinese language sources, as long as these are not primary sources and there are no substitutes in English. See my comments on the article's talk page.--Niohe 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to User:Pan Dan. I do not see why that information should be separated from a brief discussion of the origin of the name ([[Yuan (surname}#Origin of the surname]]). This is, after all, an article about the surname. -- Black Falcon 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's an article where half the content is about the name and the other half is about the clans. The title Yuan (surname) is not quite right. Pan Dan 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to User:Pan Dan. What do you understand from the word "Clan", and its relation to the concept of a Chinese surname, so much so that you belief they should be discussed seperately?--Huaiwei 07:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's relevant that the Yuan clans are related to the Yuan surname. They're distinct topics as indicated by certain sections of Yuan (surname) describing the name and other sections describing the clans. The separateness of the topics is already evident in the article, and I would propose making the separation even clearer by transferring the content about the name to Wiktionary. Pan Dan 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a fair representation of what sectionalizing an article means. The part about the surname ("Origins of the surname") provides essential background context to later sections. The article overall is about a particular surname. An encyclopedic treatment of such a subject requires discussing the origins of the name, where/when it is used, and any special (historical, political, cutlural) signifiance attached to the name or carriers of the name. -- Black Falcon 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think it's relevant. In Chinese history, the origins of clans led to the development of the surname. It's connected. There is no separation. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, I didn't mean that the Yuan clans are irrelevant to the Yuan name. I meant that the relationship between the Yuan clans and the Yuan name is irrelevant to this discussion (for reasons given above). Pan Dan 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You clearly did mention a claim that the surname and the clan are "distinct" to the point of requiring two differemt articles. What do you understand from this topic to define this "distinction", and to form an opinion that they should be split into two different sites?--Huaiwei 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article itself is already divided into sections discussing the name (intro, Origin of the surname, Spread of the surname) and sections discussing the clans (Early Yuan clans, Genealogies, Clan organization). Pan Dan 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? That's to make the article more readable. The article on Tony Blair has separate sections for "Background and family life" and "Early political career". Surely you wouldn't suggest that these sections should be in separate articles? Or should we remove from the astronomy article the definition of the word? Dicdefs are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they are supplemented by additional encyclopedic content. It's the same situation here. The "Origins of the surname" section defines the term and establishes context for the rest of the article. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. In other words, your only motivation to consider them "distinct" is due to the way a wikipedian article is sectionalised, and not due to your understanding of Chinese clans and Chinese surnames?--Huaiwei 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of the Yuan clans and the Yuan surname, their relationship to each other, and their distinctness despite this relationship, is based on reading the article itself. If you have an understanding of this subject that goes beyond what is in the article, and you can source it, please add both the understanding and the sourcing to the article. Pan Dan 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you are still not explaining just what "understanding" you have gleened from the above, other than to say there is a section for clans. Just what do you understand about clans and the surname from that article to call them distinct?--Huaiwei 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any name would be presumed distinct from a group of clans bearing that name. The burden is to explain why the Yuan name is somehow not distinct from the Yuan clans. After reading the article, it is apparent to me that there are things to be said about the name Yuan, and other things to be said about the Yuan clans. Why do you think that the relationship between the Yuan name and the Yuan clans means they're not distinct? Pan Dan 17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the burden is on anyone other then the person claiming a "distiction" in a topic when no one has made such a distinction before. Your claim is unique, unverified and unsourced, and it is not the onus of the entire community to explain old, verified, and sourced information to you. Once again, you are simply not explaining to us just where does the "distinction" lies in other than superficial impressions. I am beginning to have serious doubts on your basic understanding of Chinese surnames, and the reasonings you throw up here.--Huaiwei 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connection between Chinese surnames and clans is irrelevant to the distinction we always make between content appropriate for Wikipedia and content appropriate for Wiktionary. The organization of the article Yuan (surname) confirms the propriety of that distinction. I appreciate the significance of surnames in Chinese culture, as explained in Chinese surnames#The sociological use of surnames, but that gives no warrant to violate the Wikipedia-Wiktionary distinction. Pan Dan 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So should we remove from the Astronomy article the sentence "Astronomy is the science of celestial objects (such as stars, planets, comets, and galaxies) and phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere (such as auroras and cosmic background radiation)."? Definitions are necessary to establish context. However, Wikipedia articles should not consist only of definitions (per WP:WINAD). One last thing: the section "Origin of the surname" is actually not even a definition! It's a historical background section. How is the sentence "Prior to the unification of China in 221 BC, the concentration of the surname was in the historical domain of Chen. Some members of the Yuan clan are known to have moved to Zheng and other neighbouring states." a definition? -- Black Falcon 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we move this discussion to Talk:Yuan (surname), where it belongs.--Niohe 23:58, 24 February 2007 (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.
More