Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince of Dai (Ming dynasty)

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 but potentially rescope/target. There is consensus that a merger isn't appropriate due to the difference in time periods, but also appears to be consensus that the content needs changing, which can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Dai (Ming dynasty)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is mostly a list of people who held the title while there is an entire article on this same topic see Prince of Dai. Merging the two articles would be the best use of resources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was sent to draft and user just recreated it in main space. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on imperial Chinese nobility, but it looks to me like this article and Prince of Dai are about different topics. Prince of Dai seems to be about rulers of the state of Dai and related entities (c. 300 BCE to 300 CE). Prince of Dai (Ming dynasty) is about one of many princely peerages during the Ming dynasty (1368 to 1644 CE). It's not obvious to me that these articles about different ranks from different kingdoms 1000+ years apart should be merged. So I'd say keep unless a better reason for deletion is provided. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mx. Granger. Two different topics. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reason to not merge these articles? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, they seem to be different ranks used in different kingdoms 1000+ years apart. Why would we merge them? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested it because the Prince of Dai article had a partial list, I'm kinda stabbing in the dark here. I figured it might make sense to make an article that is a list of people who held the title Prince of Dai and then make the Prince of Dai article talk about the history and meaning of the title. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure -- We have an article on every British peerage and baronetcy, except where the first holder was the last. I do not see why we should not have the like on Chinese titles. Restructure, using the British peerage articles as a model. No objection to merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron makes a really good point and I have no idea why I didn't think of it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide whether or not to Merge two articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A historical princedom, held by many princes, making titile holder the ruler of a territory (Datong). Taung Tan (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2022 (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.