Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China Information & Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China Links at HealthHaven.com

Points of interest related to China on Wikipedia
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Stubs – Deletions – Cleanup

Shortcut: WP:DSZH

Deletion Sorting
Project

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to China. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding

{{subst:delsort|China}}<small>—~~~~</small>

to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to China.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

See also: Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board

[edit] China

[edit] Wang Jiancheng

(Find sources: "Wang Jiancheng" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Nothing I see indicates that he is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. I just added a footnote to prove that he is one of Distinguished Contemporary Chinese Jurists. Notable enough. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- I remind our nominator that deletion is supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on the current state of the article. Wang was a visiting scholar at several institutions, was a Fulbright Scholar, Deputy President of the China Procedural Law Association. It took about thirty seconds to find this out. Nominators who don't conduct a cursory web search, prior to nominating articles for deletion let down the rest of the project's contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Li Jianying

(Find sources: "Li Jianying" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Is this pilot sufficiently notable? It doesn't seem so to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. According to Wikipedia:Notability, a person is notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The significant coverage can be found at, e.g., this page (in Chinese) at Sina.com. Li Jianying received a gold medal for pilots, the highest honor for a PLA pilot. I think that he is notable enough. --Pengyanan (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but he was, basically, known for a single event, and was not known before or after (obviously, because he unfortunately died). See WP:SBST. --Nlu (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  - Even if Li Jianying is only notable for a single event, then the article should be renamed to cover the event, not be deleted, according to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event.--Pengyanan (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Victoria Cross winners are also usually only known for a single event, but they are always held to be notable. If this medal really is the highest award for pilots in China then the article should be kept, as recipients of the highest honour in a country have always been held to be inherently notable on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep If the medal is the highest award in China for pilots then the subject is notable. Maybe a little rewriting would help, but the subject is sufficiently notable. DRosin (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Seems notable, but article needs work like referencing. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep -- Nominator failed to conduct a basic web-search prior to this nomination and their nomination of Wang Jiancheng. Geo Swan (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pékin Fine Arts

Delete. Non-notable art gallery, no independent references, fails WP:COMPANY. Major expansion of the article. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait - This article does claim notoriety of the gallery which would also prove the notoriety of its creator (the subject of the article). It has no citations to prove said notoriety but I believe that some time should be give for the creator/editors to post citations. OlYeller^Talktome 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note - I looked for some reliable sources and found the text on the wiki article was copied and pasted from the Pekin Fine Arts official website. I'm changing my vote to Delete for that reason. OlYeller^Talktome 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and copyvio to boot. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I declined the G12 deletion and just removed all that text, leaving a stub behind. It's what one should do in those cases. Back on topic, I think there might be sources, there were some when I Google News-ed it. Regards So Why 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep The references and a quick news search shows that this is not a typical art gallery. This art gallery is mention by western media as the new hot spot of art in Pekin, this is a claim of notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

*Delete The references provided only mention the gallery in passing; hardly substantial. The first reference doesn't seem to mention the gallery at all (if it does, I missed it, which kind of shows how little is being written). I found the mention in the first article listed: a brief interview with the gallery director about the Beijing art scene and the restaurant mentioned in the New York Times article. The google search provided above only point to promotional sites and the existing references. There's really no substancial coverage beyond the trivial at this point. freshacconci talktalk 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Per the much improved article as it now stands. You see: we art editors are not all crazed deletionists... freshacconci talktalk 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:ADVERT. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Per sources, borderline notability is established here, and the copyvio is resolved (might want to delete that revision just in case). WP:ADVERT is all well and good, but notability trumps it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY because the coverage is trivial and incidental.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Reference 1 and 3 are trivial. 4 only mentions the founder and 2 contains too little information to support a fully article. Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG and makes no other claims to investigate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: article expanded throughout with additional references. Existing comments in this AfD relate to earlier versions[1] and [2] so will need to be revisited for the current version. Ty 02:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep per preceding comment. Listed by The New York Times as amongst the five "top museums and galleries" in Beijing. There are multiple references in major sources, and even when the gallery is not the main subject, the mentions are not trivial, as the gallery owner is consistently seen as a significant figure to quote on topics. Ty 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep good material..Modernist (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

[edit] China Proposed deletions

Yat Lo Fat (via WP:PROD on 18 November 2008)
CITIC Square, Shanghai (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

[edit] Patrick Yu

(Find sources: "Patrick Yu" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Lawyer...rose through the ranks....got important jobs....wrote two books. I've searched around and this bare bones is about it. Unreferenced for 4 years and I can see why. Not enough notice from reliable sources and certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Many sources available, and three of the first four describe him "legendary," "famous," and "renowned" in Hong Kong legal circles. Thus appears to meet WP:BIO. The article suffers because it was written under the far more lenient 2004 Wikipedia standards of referencing and hasn't improved since, but I daresay someone obsessive enough to care could turn this into a good or featured article--and that's before we get to the strong likelihood that there exist numerous contemporary newspaper articles about Yu that aren't readily accessible online. Appears to meet the AUTHOR standard, as well. THF (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This person seems to meet the criteria listed under WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC, but the article does seriously lack reliable sources and references. Perhaps most of the unsourced information in the article should hidden until they can be cited and verified. Tvtr (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan

[edit] June 9

[edit] {{ROC-party-stub}}, {{ROC-politician-stub}}, {{ROC-university-stub}}, {{ROC-bio-stub}}, {{ROC-geo-stub}}, and {{ROC-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. -Mairi (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested to list here from WP:WSS/D. Redirect the above templates (ALL unproposed) to Taiwan stub counterparts. impact F = 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete would be a first preference - ROC is not used in stub naming (we've had this argument on other stub names before). If not, then redirect would be a second option. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. But, User:Nihonjoe pointed out at WP:WSS/D that people would quote "likely [to] keep creating them otherwise" and most of the ROC templates were created by User:Montemonte. Should they be change into redirects like User:Nihonjoe suggested?? - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  - I strongly doubt it, and there are good reasons for not having them. This is the first time these templates have been made, and the Taiwan equivalents have been in use for years. Given how long the Taiwan ones have been in use without redirects having been made, i doubt they'd be likely to be remade again in a hyurry. In any case, as I pointed out, we deliberately don't use "ROC". We don't for several reasons: 1) With the exception of U and US, we don't use abbreviations at all (though there are still early template redirects for New Zealand and Hong ong, since they were originally at NZ- and HK- prior to the formalising of stub naming (in both cases, these redirects are deprecated and will hopefully eventually be removed); 2) Though the Republic of China is the primary usage of ROC, it does also refer to other things, so can be ambiguous; 3) "Republic of China", though used to refer to the country also now informally as Taiwan, can be confusing since the term also refers to Mainland China between 1912 and 1949, so the exact usage of any stubs called "ROC-X-stub" can be ambiguous; 4) The term "Republic of China is still controversial in some quartters, and there is nothing more difficult to deal with on Wiipedia than edit-warring on stub templates. Any changes can affect not only dozens of articles, but also both templates and categories-as such, one edit acts as a multiple edit across a slab of articlespace, templatespace, and categoryspagce. If you think that the term is straightforward and non-controversial, I advise you to have a loo at the history of comments on Template talk:Taiwan-stub and elsewhere;5) As with similar circumstances in other countries, it leaves the door open to dozens of other potential redirect names, which defeats the purpose of standardised naming. Given that we have PRChina-X-stub as the standard for the people's republic, ROChina-X-stub should in theory be standard for Taiwan, no? Or would it be RoChina-? or RoC-? Or TaiwanRoC-? or TaiwanROC-? (BTW, none of these has ever been made, either, though they are all equally viable, which further suggests the ROC- types wouldn't be remade in the foreseeable future). Similar situations have been discussed in the past with regard to the lies of US-stub (UnitedStates-stub, America-stub, USA-stub, Us-stub, Usa-stub, UnitedStatesofAmerica-stub, UnitedStatesofAmeriica-stub, Unitedstates-stub, ...). Where possible just using one name without redirects is preferable for all stub templates for this reason, unless the redirect is the sort which could form a liely later split into a separate stub type. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Further note: Some of these problems of ambiguity seem to already be arising -several of the articles using ROC-stub don't refer to the current (Taiwanese) Republic of China at all, but refer to the history of China pre-1947 (in which case, they should be using China-hist-stub. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      - That is a lot...Took me a while to read the paragraph :). I got your many points, we should delete them to standardize the stub names. So, we should just put all those "ROC-X-stubs that don't refer to the current (Taiwanese) Republic of China at all" to China-X-stubs then. Like {{ROC-politician-stub}} stubs can be put into {{China-politician-stub}}...etc. - impact F = 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        I told you there were a lot of reasons (and I am pretty verbose :) As to the ROC ones that aren't taiwan-specific...mmmm...not sure. That would certainly be the current system, and it's the main reason we had plain "China-' types for things like history, since so much of Chinese history is of a time before the currently existing split into PRC and ROC. I'd say that pre-1947 articles should get prrbably get a standard China- type, but I'd certainly be willing to consider alternatives. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        I think that's a great solution, putting non-taiwan ROC stubs into China-X-stubs. I found a note that someone (I think it was you, Grut, put in PRChina stub category: For articles relating to China in general - including any relating to China before 1949, use {{China-stub}}. Wasn't that an excellent suggestion? Also, I was wondering, why is Taiwan stubs put under PRChina stub cat but not China stub cat?? - impact F = 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        Note: Should I put {{sfd-t}} in all ROC-x-stubs? - impact F = 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        Might be a good idea. As to "why is Taiwan stubs put under PRChina stub cat but not China stub cat", I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but the Taiwan- types definitely shouldn't be subtypes of the PRChina- ones. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        I meant should Cat:Taiwan stubs be under Cat:People's Republic of China stubs? P.S. I put the {{sfd-t}} in all ROC-x-stubs. - impact F = 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        No, that shouldn't have been in there (and isn't now!) Grutness...wha? 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      - I don't care how it is going to be named. And after reading Grutness' arguments it appears that ROChina-stub or RoChina-stub is more logical. The problem with these stub articles is that they are not directly or immediately related to Taiwan, but they are more likely to be taken care of by Taiwan-based Wikipedians or Wikipedians interested in Taiwan matters. For example, mainland Chinese politicians and generals who followed the Kuomintang to Taiwan and retired and died there, or a newspaper that was founded on mainland China and relocated to the island of Kinmen with the Kuomintang. Montemonte (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep all or keep Template:ROC-stub There is still chances of expanding the articles. I don't object to redirect or anything but I think they will still be used in the future. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course there's still a chance of expanding the articles. All that's been proposed is the deletion of these templates, which are for exactly the same thing as others which have been in use for years. "Taiwan" is universally used for stubs on Wikipedia, so all that will happen is that ROC-stub will be replaced by the long-standing, correctly-named Taiwan-stub. Same with the other types listed-they'll be replaced with the existing stub templates. Grutness...wha? 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Montemonte (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} and {{ROC-hist-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ROC-hist-stub.

Closed on behalf of Xeno.— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete both of them (both unproposed)?? However {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} can be used in the future... impact F = 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete the ROC one, keep the Taiwan one in upmerged form - but remove the permcat from the template, which shouldn't be there. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against your argument: Taiwan is an island; ROC is a country, they do not equate. Additionally, ROC history is huge, especially during the time of mainland rule, from 1912 to 1949, on mainland China. Taiwanese history only has to do with just the island. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please read Grutness' argument above relating to why the name "ROC" is not used. - impact F = 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

- Comment. ROC-hist-stub change to redirect, see the above comment. - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  - See response above for numerous reasons not to. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Agree Check above response for my suggestion. -impact F = 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep All or keep just the Taiwan one. There is still much to expand in Taiwan's history. I see no reason to delete both of them. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ROC is just as important as Taiwan. Taiwan is just an island X by Y kilometres across, the ROC was a country half the size of Russia from 1912 to 1949, before it fell to the PRC. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

*Keep both. Montemonte (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Cat:Taiwan road stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. -Mairi (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unproposed, the stub count is at 45, not enough for a stub category. impact F = 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

First choice would be "try to find 15 more". If that can't be done, then upmerge pre nom. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I found two more and I added the stub temps. 47 is still not enough though. I didn't find any more TW road stubs. - impact F = 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This wasn't tagged with {{sfd-c}}, so it might be worth waiting a few more days. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Contents

[edit] China

[edit] Wang Jiancheng

[edit] Li Jianying

[edit] Pékin Fine Arts

[edit] China Proposed deletions

[edit] Patrick Yu

[edit] Taiwan

[edit] June 9

[edit] {{ROC-party-stub}}, {{ROC-politician-stub}}, {{ROC-university-stub}}, {{ROC-bio-stub}}, {{ROC-geo-stub}}, and {{ROC-stub}}

[edit] {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} and {{ROC-hist-stub}}

[edit] Cat:Taiwan road stubs