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 delete. postdlf (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Hua Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced, and there's nothing I can find that verifies the contents of this article. Moreover, the way the name is rendered is inconsistent with the usual romanization methods used at the time (Wade-Giles) and after (Pinyin and variations). I can't tell if it's a hoax, but it may be, but even if not hoax, the unverifiability may mean the article should be deleted. --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable; Google and Google Book searches merely return syndicated publications. Mephistophelian (contact) 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete in the absence of any coverage in reliable sources we cannot have an article on this person per WP:V. It is possible that the apparent lack of such sources is because of inaccurate transliteration, but there isn't much we can do about that. The article hasn't received any new content since its creation in 2007, and the way it was written suggests it was written by a relative of the subject. Hut 8.5 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. If the article is true, the subject would be notable by extension of holding a flag officer rank, but we can't tell that, so there's not a lot we can do. —Ed!^(talk) 14:22, 15 December 2012 (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.