Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffin home (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffin home

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

Dicdef, no sourcing found, completely untouched since 2006 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable~~ Redirect to Bedspace apartment: The only article to link to this and use the term is Tung Wah Coffin Home, where the term might be replaceable by "mortuary". The term is, however, widely used in English metaphorically to refer to high density shared housing in Hong Kong[1]~~, but I can't identify a suitable article~~. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the page itself: Not to be confused with bedspace apartment. – Gpc62 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a valid entry. Coffin Home (義莊) was common in the South China. This kind of establishment is also found in Japan. Please read ja:義荘 in Japanese, zh:義莊 in Chinese, and zh-yue:義莊 in Cantonese. They gives non-English sources for this topic. Source 1, a book 遠藤隆俊「義荘」（『歴史学事典 13 所有と生産』（弘文堂、2006年） ISBN 978-4-335-21042-6. Source 2, an article [2] 張軍. 範氏義莊作為慈善機構何以運轉800餘年. 和訊網. 2013-08-06. Source 3, an article [3] 清代民間慈善事業. 江蘇省財政廳. 2014-09-29. Source 4, a book 唐力行. 商人與中國近世社會. 臺灣商務印書館. 1997: 199. ISBN 9570513993. This topic is ancient and might not attract many researchers to write English articles. But if you search 義莊 on Google, it gives several hundred thousand results. — HenryLi (Talk) 10:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article was a bit shabby but this is an important type of establishment in East Asian cultures. There are enough reliable sources on it, some of which are cited by the zh and ja versions of this article. I have made a first stab at brushing up the article with a few references. Deryck C. 18:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HenryLi, Deryck C., and common sense. — Gpc62 (talk) 07:08, 1 December 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.