Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China

WP:DSZH

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. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not 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. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|China|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to China. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/China/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board

China

Shuicheng Road station

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:STATION. Source 1 in article is an official system map (primary & not independent) and source 2 appears to be a database that may be user-generated (not reliable). A WP:BEFORE search on Google & Baidu in both English & Chinese did not turn up anything useful. I WP:BLARed this to Line 10 (Shanghai Metro)#Stations last year, but this was reverted by another user in October this year (rewritten but no improvements in terms of notability). I propose that the aforementioned redirect be restored. S5A-0043^Talk 14:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the adjacent stations it seems they have a similar level of sourcing. Batch nom might be preferable here? Jumpytoo Talk 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to do this as a trial run before nominating other articles. Last time I jumped ahead in a batch nom I messed up in explaining my case and it kind of backfired so I’m trying to avoid that. S5A-0043^Talk 04:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, redirect to Line 10 (Shanghai Metro) as WP:ATD. I found one source but that is insufficient for GNG: [1]. Jumpytoo Talk 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-redirect >>> Line 10 (Shanghai Metro)#Stations Djflem (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunan Self-Study University

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

This article does not appear notable based on WP:RS Amigao (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important, if brief, part of modern Chinese history and a listed cultural heritage site in Hunan. Chinese wikipedia has an article: zh:湖南自修大学旧址 (admittedly, unsourced). I've added a number of links, including a biography of Li Da which discusses his time at the university, and this article from China Daily.

Article is not an orphan (single link at Yang Youlin but could be linked to from a few of the notable students/teachers' pages. There are a few uncited passages in the article which may or may not be supported by sources, but I've left them for now. This should pass GNG either as an orgainzation or as a historical site (which is how it's treated on the Chinese wiki). Here's some info from the China Daily article.

China Daily "From Qingshuitang to Chuanshan Academy, Chengbei witnessed Mao Zedong's "small family, big country" road[2]

Via Google translate "Under the plaque of "Chuanshan Academy" in the courtyard, there is an inconspicuous signboard of "Hunan Self-Study University". Surrounded by progressive youths and workers and peasants, Mao Zedong took to the podium to give instructions and talk freely....The second two rooms restore the bedrooms of Mao Zedong and He Shuheng, the office of the Hunan Student Union, and the library of the Self-Study University. Pictures and other forms show Mao Zedong's experience in the Self-Study University, as well as photos and life stories of some people who studied at the Self-Study University.....In 1921, Mao Zedong, He Shuheng and other comrades set up Hunan Self-Study University here to gather talents from all over the world. From its founding in August 1921 to its closure in 1923, the Self-Study University had more than 200 students, including Li Weihan, Xia Minghan, Yi Lirong, Jiang Mengzhou, Guo Liang, and Mao Zemin, who trained and sent a large number of backbones for the Party."

Oblivy (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao would you like to have a look at the article and see if you still think it qualifies for deletion? I think we're at WP:HEY. Oblivy (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we can keep per WP:HEY. Thanks for doing a lot of improvement on it. - Amigao (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oblivy, although I would not be opposed to a suitable merge. No obvious merge arises though, so perhaps make that a separate discussion. Although this was only open for such a short time, the identity of the founder, the notability of alumni and its place in history all speak to clear notability, and the sources added are already sufficient. It is likely it gets mentioned in other secondary sources too. Definitely not a delete. Is seems that the article will always be short. This is not necessarily a problem though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong related deletions

Lantau Link Visitors Centre

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

Even after addition of sources, topic still seems unimportant. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: GNG is clearly fulfilled after I deproded the article. The two Oriental Daily News articles (source 1 and 4) and the am730 article (source 5) are full-length articles with detailed coverage on the centre's history and current condition. "topic still seems unimportant" is not a deletion rationale but a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism - I don't think the sources constitute significant coverage, Source 1 and 4 are basically the same article from the same source, Source 5 is barely in-depth and just those two sources don't reach the level required; this article will never be able to expanded upon based on the available sources. I think merging into Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism would be better. :JeffUK 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism: "Seems unimportant" is not a reason for deletion, but everything I found (with the help of Google translate) ties it into the bridge. Length isn't an issue, so I think a merger makes the most sense here. Star Mississippi 14:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @JeffUK and Star Mississippi: I am interested to hear more detailed comments on the sources from you guys. Even if articles from the same media outlet count as one like Jeff suggested, the Oriental Daily News articles are a still decent source that detail the development and current condition of the visitor centre's lack of maintenance. The am730 article is barely in-depth? The 1,800-word article is entirely about the centre, ranging from its construction history, to its tourism development, and to the recent public discussions about revitalization. I would really like to hear what Jeff thinks this article is about if you believe it is not focused on the visitor centre, and how does it relate to the bridge when it was only briefly mentioned for four times throughout the article? GNG only requires SIGCOV from multiple sources, and these two articles already meet the criterion, not to mention other sources currently listed in the article, like the Sing Tao Daily article (source 9) which is also entirely about the centre and viewing platform. I think a potential factor leading to our varied analyses of the sources may stem from the disregard for the mentions of the viewing platform in those articles. The official name of the location is actually Lantau Link Visitors Centre and Viewing Platform[3][4] (like the Chinese translation suggested: 青嶼幹綫訪客中心及觀景台), and they are the same place. (I believe a move is much needed if this article is to be kept.). —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As WP:GNG says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." I think it will look great as a part of the Tsing Ma Bridge article. On the specific source, barely means 'it is in-depth, but only just', the fact it's 1,800 words long isn't relevant, it's a lot of talk that says very little, the reason we have WP:SIGCOV is, partly, to ensure there is enough unique information available for us to create an article. JeffUK 15:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with @JeffUK here @Prince of Erebor. The reader wants to learn about the bridge, which includes this viewing area. They are the same subject and it makes sense for them to be covered together. WP:NOPAGE is also helpful here. It would be different if there was information independent of the bridge and/or there was a length issue. I think the official name isn't a strong issue, it can be addressed with a redirect should this close as merge or be retained as a standalone. Star Mississippi 15:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  [Edit conflict] JeffUK, I apologize if my emphasis on the article's length caused confusion. I understand that your initial comment was about the article lacking SIGCOV on the subject, which I respectfully disagreed with, as the article is entirely focused on it. I do not believe your interpretation of SIGCOV aligns with what SIGCOV means. SIGCOV refers to a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, rather than providing only a passing or brief mention, so I do not think the am730 article fails to meet SIGCOV. I think you are more likely referring to WP:NOPAGE, and I understand your perspective and the rationale that notability alone does not guarantee a standalone article. If the current article were a stub with only two sentences and only two sources just to bypass GNG, I definitely agree with you. But the article has sufficient notability, especially with a revitalization project underway and ongoing news coverage, including articles published as recently as this year (the Our China Story source). Therefore, I do not agree with your assertion that the article has no potential for expansion, and I do not see a need to merge it. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, Star Mississippi, we were writing at the same time, and my comment was only addressing Jeff's arguments. However, I also thought you guys were leaning towards the NOPAGE side, and imo, the revitalization project mentioned in the am730 source already indicates the subject's independence from the bridge. I realize I may have failed to express my final comments regarding the official name of the Centre. What I meant to convey is that the viewing platform is also part of the subject, so perhaps you guys overlooked the lines discussing the viewing platform or observation deck and thought they referred to the bridge instead of the Centre, because I was a bit confused when multiple editors found that article lacked in-depth coverage of the subject. Apologies for the confusion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Anyway, thanks both for clarifying things for me and I now understand the arguments from you guys, which focus not on the sources but on the lack of independence of the subject. Let's see what other editors have to say about this. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  All good @Prince of Erebor and we'll see where this lands. I'm not against retention, I'm just not sure it's the best solution for readers. Thanks, as always, for your detailed input. Star Mississippi 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions