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

Chen Zhehan

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

No sources to support notability Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and China. Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Yongrui. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the article fails basic critera WP:SPORTBASIC. Stvbastian (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Yongrui

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

No sources to support notability Stvbastian (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and China. Stvbastian (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chen meets WP:NBADMINTON, as he and Chen Zhehan have won a Super 100-level tournament together. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the article fails basic critera WP:SPORTBASIC. Stvbastian (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baiyangping railway station

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

Non-notable railway station. A before search found no notability. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insignificant railway station in a small village. Article created by an editor later blocked for socking, apparently to mass-create similar articles. Toadspike [Talk] 22:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Redirect to Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu passenger-dedicated railway~~: It's been under construction for 15 years, since the article was created. WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations.". I didn't found any special notability of this station to meet GNG, but it's difficult to find sources. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a redirect here because I can't find a single source showing that it exists or has ever been under construction, let alone still is. Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have changed my vote. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, found no evidence of the station existing or even plans of its construction Jumpytoo Talk 17:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jingyi Jessica Li

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

Promotional biography. Article author has moved this to mainspace after several declines at AFC, and has resisted re-drafticiation, so here we are at AFD. The only independent reliable source cited is for a listing on Innovators Under 35's regional China sublist. The rest of the citations are written by the article subject. I have looked and not been able to find better sourcing. One source is not enough to hang WP:GNG on, and they do not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NPROFESSOR, so I think this one ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, Medicine, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her citation record (h-index over 30, 13 publications with 100+ citations) looks OK for WP:NPROF#1 (maybe a bit borderline) but I would say that her Overton Prize and recent Guggenheim Fellowship (I just added that information to the article) count for WP:NPROF#2. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Overton Prize and the Guggenheim Fellowship both contribute to WP:PROF #2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"). After receiving the Overton Prize, there was an extended article on her in the journal Bioinformatics [1], which also contributes to notability. I did a little tidying up to make this less resume-like and more appropriate for Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. While the awards are relevant, they are all early career to at most mid-career, so not the type of major peer awards for WP:NPROF#C2 IMO. When I look at her citations, I think we need to ignore the first (consortium) source. With just the others she has an h-factor of 33, which by comparison to some of her co-authors such as Peter J. Bickel, Steven E. Brenner or Kai-Wai_Chang is not that impressive, it is not a low citation area. (The first two are more senior, but Chang is not.) I am not impressed by just having a few articles with > 100 cites, my benchmark is more > 1000. Perhaps I am harder to impress... Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NPROF#2a; the Guggenheim Fellowship is limited to mid-career (and later) academics (not students, even postgrads) and is even listed as an example for prestigious awards. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuquanying

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

Non-notable intersection. In attempting to source this article, I was unable to find any valid sources about this particular intersection, much less anything that would contribute to notability. Garsh (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems odd to me that the article is focused on an intersection. Isn't Yuquanying a major road, not just an intersection? (There seem to be many articles about the road and building complexes on the road via Google News.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yuquanying Subdistrict. The Chinese name here is 玉泉营, which seems to refer to a variety of topics in that area, but I think all can be covered at the main subdistrict article. That article could be expanded with this source, which covers the history of the area in depth, though its reliability could be debated [2]. Toadspike [Talk] 11:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Sources have been added, focus has been expanded to mention Yuquanying's 800 years of history as one of the 18 floricultural villages of the Fengtai district of Beijing before becoming the site of a major highway intersection and overpass. (OK I'm still in the process of untangling how best to cite and/or edit that section, which could still take several days as I try to work on other things.) Sincerely appreciate the pointer to the administrative subdistrict page provided by Toadspike (not to mention their spirit of investigation which is what makes these geography AfD puzzles interesting), but the modern administrative subdistrict article can remain separate from the Yuquanying article about the history of the village since the Jin dynasty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about this – I considered expanding this article, but decided that Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article about a populated place, is more suitable for this information. I don't mean to be rude, but you have effectively hijacked this article and changed its topic to one that we already cover elsewhere. Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 800-year history of the village of Yuquanying, where there is now also a highway overpass, is not covered at all in the current article about Yuquanying Subdistrict, which focuses on an administrative region established in 2021. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can only have one topic claiming notablity per GEOLAND on this, and here it should be the legally-recognized subdistrict. Of the three sources you link, the first is about the subdistrict, the second lists Yuquanying among other subdistricts like Majiapu Subdistrict and some places that don't seem to have legal recognition, and the third is a mathematical analysis of traffic at the intersection that doesn't actually tell us anything about the intersection. I am not convinced this shows the need for a split from the main subdistrict article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Qianxi tourist boat capsizings

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

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the spike of news reports following the event. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Qianxi, Guizhou per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The event happened on 4 May 2025. Less than a month after the event, it is unknown whether sources will continue covering the subject in the future to demonstrate it is notable. Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage says:
However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.
I support a selective merge of between one sentence to a paragraph to the history section of the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Shandong factory explosion

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

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. XYZ1233212 (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and delete per point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. - Amigao (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random news story and not subject to sustained secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to List of explosions#27 May 2025 Shandong explosion, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The event happened on 27 May 2025. Less than a week after the event, it is unknown whether sources will continue covering the subject in the future to demonstrate it is notable. Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage says:
However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.
I support a selective merge of between one sentence to a paragraph to the "Details" column of the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Republic of China

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

This is a random assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together. Some of the people listed have very tenuous connections, e.g. Syngman Rhee, Alexander von Falkenhausen. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, China, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a reason to delete article. An article of the same name already exists in Chinese Wikipedia, and it is a political term that is also used in reality. In the case of Rhee or Falkenhausen, the link also exists in Chinese Wikipedia, but you can remove it if it's unnecessary; there's no reason why the whole article should be deleted. ProgramT (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political term. It is a phrase, like Pro-Israel or Pro-Greenland. Also, this is not the Chinese Wikipedia. The fact that Rhee and Falkenhausen are linked there undermine that Wikipedia's credibility. "Republic of China"/"ROC" is mentioned exactly once in Rhee's article, in the caption identifying Chiang Kai-shek. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A content dispute (regarding the examples of Rhee and von Falkenhausen) is not grounds for deletion. Having an "assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together" is also not grounds for deletion; list articles are a thing, as are similarly-named and scoped articles like Pro-Americanism and Russophilia. "Other thing exists" arguments aren't policy-based, but I don't see a proposal here based on deletion policy and cannot figure out what the deletion rationale could be. The nominator's disagreements seem to be limited to a content dispute concerning possible WP:OR, rather than a denial of this topic's notability or existence. Yue🌙 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator had argued for deletion based on WP:SYNTH, with supporting evidence/analysis, I may be sympathetic. But instead they questioned whether Falkenhausen, who served in the military of the ROC, can be called "pro-ROC", which makes this very hard to take seriously. As such, I essentially agree with the two others above that this should be closed as a procedural keep; it could even be argued that this falls under speedy keep criteria 1 or 3. Toadspike [Talk] 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article seems to be a pervasive work of WP:SYNTH that is syncretizing the views of several distinct people based on a tenuous connection to a position on Taiwan. Significant concern regarding accuracy of any citations in this. An article on this topic (albeit one with perhaps a less clumsy name) could definitely exist but I think this one needs WP:TNT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. A TNT may be appropriate here. There is a lot of unsourced and poorly-sourced content. But the article tries to discuss a notable topic (the distinction between "pro-Taiwan" and "pro-ROC") and I'm not sure if deletion is better than trying to clean it up. Toadspike [Talk] 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up would have to start with manually reviewing every citation to see if it actually supports what is claimed for it. It's not a small task. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "A random assortment of info all lumped together" is a perfectly good nomination statement for a WP:TNT delete. So - does it need TNT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am solidly neutral on a TNT. The content isn't ideal, but it's not that bad. OTOH I currently don't have the bandwidth to give it the serious makeover it needs. Toadspike [Talk] 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2015 Tianjin explosions

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

A sad event, but the victims aren't notable. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and China. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a rather huge event(Compared to 911 on some occasions), and victims lists are pretty common on the article themselves, just that the article itself likely cannot fit the people. Now, I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I would say this is about as notable as Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks. Additionally, this list sort of already exists on List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s, and among the casualties is the former deputy chief of the TEDA zone fire brigade and a deputy police chief. Also, see WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL and WP:NLIST. There is also coverage on casualty related topics, such as the 8th Street Company, the legal status of the private police and firefighters and so on. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don´t get the logic. We don´t list the victims for small accidents, as these normally don´t have an article for the event. We don´t lust the victims of truly large events (war, famine, natural disasters) as there are too many, it would be an indiscriminate list, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, take your pick... But for a small group of intermediate events we suddenly have articles to list the victims, even though they aren´t really any different from all these others. Seems completely arbitrary. Fram (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Fram See WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL and WP:NLIST; The article also includes notable, covered related topics such as the 8th Street Company, which became highly decorated(Possibly most highly decorated fire station(formerly company) in China) and the legal status of the volunteer firefighters and private police, which even Li Keqiang made a comment on.

I may also even include more things such as the timeline of the official casualty count, evacuation efforts and allegations of a higher casualty count later own. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thehistorianisaac ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am reluctant to delete any topic that is the subject of an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with Fram. Event is notable as major industrial accident. Individual casualties are not, unless by some other criteria and those can be included/summarized in the relevant section of the event article. Notable findings from the Chinese Journal of Traumatology source can be added to the main event article; right now it's just being used to verify casualty statistics. It's really stretching to claim that this event is comparable to 9/11; nothing of the sort is mentioned in the event article, and I think it's pretty safe to say this industrial accident was not a major geopolitical event with commensurate global effects lasting decades (and ongoing?) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Fram@RovingPersonalityConstruct

I propose a third solution. Of course, I still would prefer to keep the article, however it is possible this could simply be merged back to the original article, whether it be purely the statistics table or the list itself. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 4th possible solution:

I could possibly expand the article to be more similar to Casualties of the September 11 attacks instead of Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks and include information on stuff like initial disaster relief(which has gained tonnes of coverage, thanks to the actions of the 8th street company) and make the article notable, while keeping the list itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this could also include related things(who all were heavily covered) like an alleged higher casualty count, political discussion about the police and volunteer firefighters being technically private police and originally being ineligible for certain awards etc.

This was originally how I planned to do the list, though it got AfD'ed before I managed to fully write it Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RovingPersonalityConstruct For the comparison to 911, here is a source from Radio France Internationale citing bloomberg that many chinese compared the damage of the attack to the September 11 attacks (https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20150820-%E7%BA%BD%E7%BA%A6%E6%B6%88%E9%98%B2%E9%98%9F%E4%B8%BA%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E9%81%87%E9%9A%BE%E7%9A%84%E6%B6%88%E9%98%B2%E5%91%98%E9%99%8D%E5%8D%8A%E6%97%97%E8%87%B4%E5%93%80) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable as in similar event/scale/impact. As I said, industrial accident vs. major geopolitical event. That sort of thing requires more than the NYFD lowering its flag to half-mast like they did after 9/11. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fram and RovingPersonalityConstruct. Perhaps further detail of casualties can be added to the main article, but a stand-alone article is not warranted. - Amigao (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Fram@Amigao@RovingPersonalityConstruct

I think I need to clarify something:

The list of victims already existed to some extent on the List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s, however that only included the active service firefighters. The "victims" section of 2015 Tianjin Explosions originally linked to this article.

The only thing the current article does is include volunteer firefighters, police, civilians and adding some context, such as regarding the 8th Street Company, the legal status of the private police and volunteer firefighters. The only thing this article really changes is that the info is easier to access and more complete. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these "killed in the line of duty" articles (not just China, but e.g. the endless US articles) need deletion or severe pruning, but that's a separate discussion. Having part of this information available in another article is not really a reason to create or keep this one. Fram (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the killed in the line of duty articles should be deleted or pruned as line of duty deaths often receive significant coverage and are much-discussed social topics whether in USA or china, in fact many of them need significant expansions; But yeah that's another topic.

Many topics related to Tianjin explosions casualties, as said above, did gain huge coverage by Chinese and foreign media, such as said above, the legal status and eligability for rewards of some of the firefighters and police. Many casualty related topics do have notability but not enough to have their own articles, so I put them here.

I think a victims list is pretty reasonable to include in an article like this, and I really hate to be the WP:OTHERSTUFF guy, but aren't we ignoring the fact that the September 11 attacks have a total of 3 lists + a casualty article? Yes, they are different in nature, but I really need to point out the inconsistencies here.

As stated before, victims lists are also pretty common overall. I think at most this article can simply be merged back to the original. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original article was pretty much just rushed, currently it has more content and will likely be further expanded. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 4:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:NOPAGE. No independent notability. There's nothing in this article that can't be merged into the parent—if it's not there already. The accident was the notable thing; a list of unfortunates whom it killed is not. It also verges on WP:NOTMEMORIAL. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I think it has been pretty normal to include victims of crimes(just see serial killers); For merging, this actually was originally meant to be part of the parent article, but this would probably be way too long. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: You have replied to every delete !vote in this dscussion. Indeed, you've contributed 50% of the edits to this page on your own. Please don't do that, it's considered WP:BLUDGEONing. You've made your points—several times now—and repetition is unhelpful. I suggest you step back and let uninvolved editors make their own minds up (which they will anyway!). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have an independent, reliable source that discusses these people as a group, so WP:NLIST is met. Looking at the article, we have [3][4][5][6]. Given NLIST is for "Stand-alone lists", I read it as superseding NOPAGE; either way, none of the three bolded bullet points under NOPAGE apply here. We have plenty of sources and discussing this topic at length in the main article would be undue.

On previous arguments for deletion: 1. The victims do not have to be notable for the list topic to be (WP:NLISTITEM). 2. The significance of the event does not matter in deciding notability or suitability of a stand-alone list. Neither do comparisons to other events. Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Although we all (or most) sympathize with victims creating a memorial is supposed to be among What Wikipedia is not. See: Wikipedia:Victim lists. There is apparently a source that names the victims. List the number of victims and link to the list. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:What NOTMEMORIAL is not Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not soley a victims list, but also includes information related to casualties during the explosions. Additionally, some of the casualties are notable(but have no wikipedia article and likely will not have one), such as as a deputy fire chief and a deputy police chief. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty which this article substantially duplicates. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the main purpose of having a list of people is because they are notable and the list makes it easier to find the article about the person concerned. This isn't the case with this article, as few, if any, of the people listed have full biographies. The difference with the casualties of the September 11 attacks is that many notable people were killed, some of whom now have Wikipedia article. That is not the case with this industrial explosion, where about all we know about these individuals is their name and their firefighting company. That is not enough to write even a start of a biography. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More info:

I'm planning to make a separate list for ministry of public security police officers(which will take a long time though) but will include the police officers, so this would also work;

As for the other info, maybe it could be moved to the main article. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 13:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. WP:NLIST is met, and NOPAGE does not apply because to integrate this back into the main article would cause WP:UNDUE and readability issues (see WP:CANYOUREADTHIS. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems an undue list when you compare to wars, Ukraine and Gaza for example where the vast majority of individual names of people killed are not listed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the main article. It's a sad event, but I don't think this page is improving the encyclopedia. If someone is looking into the deaths in such detail, they can go to the primary sources, which can be linked from the article on the disaster. More formally, this seems to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY; WP:LISTPEOPLE states that people are usually only included in a list if they are notable. The sources mentioning the deaths don't do so in enough detail to make the list notable itself: e.g., [7] doesn't mention any names, and none of the information in [8] is used in the article. Also, the argument that "this list sort of already exists on List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s" seems unconvincing to me as (apart from OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), both pages are the work of the same editor. Finally (phew!), Fram has a point: it's odd that there are only lists for "medium sized" tragedies. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a sensible difference between this list and Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks? This tragedy was an accident while 9/11 was a terrorist attack, but does that change the need for a list of casualties? Lamona (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong related deletions

Castle Road (Hong Kong)

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

Non-notable road that fails to meet WP:NGEO. From a WP:BEFORE search, there seems to be no sources that show that this subject is notable enough to warrant its own article. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Asia, and Hong Kong. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mid-Levels: Doesn't meet WP:GEOROAD. A minor road without notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Leung

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

Non-notable hostess and actress. Sources are social media which is not WP:RS and the others mentioned the subject in passing or no mention at all. Mekomo (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Journalism, Television, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Chan, Lai-mei 陳麗薇 (2024-10-19). 難忘採訪垃圾屋憶良師教誨 "東張女神母校｜梁敏巧返母校樹仁大學感激栽培　難忘採訪垃圾屋憶良師教誨" [Scoop Goddess Visits Her Alma Mater｜Maggie Leung Returns to Shue Yan University Grateful for Its Guidance — Recalls Covering a 'Trash House' and Cherished Advice from Mentors]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from 難忘採訪垃圾屋憶良師教誨 the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "梁敏巧於2013年入讀香港樹仁大學新聞與傳播學系，自2017年畢業後第一次踏足母校，... 由做記者到選港姐，再做《東張》主持，Maggie一步步走來確實不易，這全靠她有一股傲氣與不服輸的性格。Maggie從讀大學開始就自給自足，打4份兼職賺取生活費，她覺得讀大學就是長大了，人大了就要學會養活自己，不想再成為父母的「裙腳女」，所以她去教琴、做PA（節目助理）、做PR（公關）及做市場推廣，兼職的工作，令她實踐到在學校學到的知識。... 在大二那一年，Maggie有機會去北京《人民日報》實習，任職旅遊海外版，3個月的任期令她眼界大開，"
  From Google Translate: "Liang Minqiao enrolled in the Department of Journalism and Communication at Hong Kong Shue Yan University in 2013. This was her first visit to her alma mater since she graduated in 2017. From being a reporter to participating in the Miss Hong Kong pageant, and then to being the host of "East Zhang", it was not easy for Maggie to come this far step by step. This was all thanks to her pride and unyielding character. Maggie has been self-sufficient since she started college, working 4 part-time jobs to earn a living. She felt that going to college meant growing up, and when you grow up, you have to learn to support yourself. She didn't want to be a "skirt girl" for her parents anymore, so she taught piano, worked as a PA (program assistant), a PR (public relations) and did marketing. Part-time jobs allowed her to put into practice what she learned in school. ... In her sophomore year, Maggie had the opportunity to intern at the Beijing People's Daily, working on the tourism overseas edition. The three-month term opened her eyes."
2. "「東張」女神梁敏巧慶祝27歲生日曬健康性感相網民兼唔夠喉" ['Scoop' Goddess Maggie Leung Celebrates 27th Birthday — Shares Healthy and Sexy Photos, Netizens Still Want More]. Bastille Post [zh] (in Chinese). 2022-05-25. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "梁敏巧（Maggie）因為在2019年參加《香港小姐競選》得到進入娛樂圈的門券，入行初期做過兒童節目《Think Big》的主持，形象健康，後來轉做《東張西望》外景主持更累積更多人氣。離開了兒童節目後的Maggie不只言行比從前更大膽、做自己，更大方展現自己的健康性感，衣著打扮亦見清涼。有時Maggie去行山或做運動，都不吝嗇分享自己穿小背心和緊身瑜珈褲的造型，Show off好身材。"
  From Google Translate: "Maggie Leung got a ticket to the entertainment industry by participating in the "Miss Hong Kong Pageant" in 2019. In the early days of her career, she hosted the children's program "Think Big" and had a healthy image. Later, she became a field host of "Dong Zhang Xi Wang" and gained more popularity. After leaving the children's program, Maggie not only became bolder in her words and deeds and became herself, but also showed her health and sexiness more generously, and her clothes were also cool. Sometimes when Maggie goes hiking or exercising, she is not stingy to share her look in a small vest and tight yoga pants to show off her good figure."
3. Dou, Dou 杜杜 (2024-01-22). "獨家丨梁敏巧為拍劇乜都得：除咗露3點「東張女神」唔介意落水透Bra出鏡" [Exclusive丨Maggie Leung Will Do Anything for Acting: Except Showing All 3 Points — 'Scoop Goddess' Doesn’t Mind Getting Wet and Revealing Bra On Camera]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "梁敏巧（Maggie）2019年參加港姐入行，2021年加入《東張西望》做外景主持，由於採訪夠搏命，更試過遭被訪者襲擊，加上樣靚有身材而獲封「東張女神」。Maggie認為做藝人肯搏肯捱是基本，更希望有機會挑戰演戲，最想合作是欣賞多時的人夫男神黎諾懿。"
  From Google Translate: "Maggie Leung entered the industry by participating in the Miss Hong Kong pageant in 2019, and joined "East Zhang West Wang" as a location host in 2021. Because of her risk-taking in interviews, she was even attacked by the interviewees, and she was named the "East Zhang Goddess" for her good looks and figure. Maggie believes that being willing to fight and endure is the basic requirement for being an artist, and she hopes to have the opportunity to challenge acting. The person she most wants to work with is Lai Lok Yi, a married man whom she has admired for a long time."
4. "「東張女神」梁敏巧大爆港姐內幕及離地趣聞試過有佳麗唔知咩係八達通？" ['Scoop Goddess' Maggie Leung Reveals Miss Hong Kong Pageant Secrets and Out-of-Touch Anecdotes — Some Contestants Didn't Even Know What an Octopus Card Was?] (in Chinese). Yahoo News. 2022-06-01. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "「東張女神」梁敏巧（Maggie）較早前開設個人YouTube頻道，早前邀請好友黃丹虹（Vickie）擔任影片嘉賓，齊齊大爆參加香港小姐及ViuTV真人騷《廣告女皇》嘅內幕。現年27歲嘅梁敏巧，曾就讀於樹仁大學新聞與傳播學系，畢業後成為一名記者。喺2019年，佢覺得人生苦悶，好想做一啲嘢去衝擊一下，於是佢就參選香港小姐，當年嘅冠亞軍佳麗分別係黃嘉雯、王菲及古佩玲。 "
  From Google Translate: "Maggie Leung recently opened her personal YouTube channel and invited her friend Vickie Wong as a video guest to reveal the inside story of her participation in Miss Hong Kong and the ViuTV reality show "Advertising Queen". Leung Min-chiu, 27, studied journalism and communication at Shue Yan University and became a journalist after graduation. In 2019, she felt that life was boring and wanted to do something to make an impact, so she contested Miss Hong Kong. The winners and runners-up were Ka-man Wong, Faye Wong and Koo Pei-ling."
5. Kwong, Yuk Ying 鄺鈺瑩 (2021-10-26). "梁敏巧變新《東張》女神　靠兒童節目訓練：我比較蠢要每事問" [Maggie Leung Becomes the New 'Scoop' Goddess — Trained Through Children's Programs: 'I'm a Bit Slow, So I Have to Ask About Everything']. HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "加入無綫兩年嘅梁敏巧(Maggie），自兒童節目《Think Big天地》結束後，隨即獲安排做《東張西望》外景主持，最近終於獲網友留意，封她做新晉《東張》女神。不過要知道《東張》專題報導不時充滿危機，對於做慣廠景嘅Maggie嚟講，確係大挑戰。"
  From Google Translate: "Maggie Leung, who has been with TVB for two years, has been arranged to be the outdoor host of "Tong Cheung Sai Wang" after the end of the children's show "Think Big World". However, it is indeed a big challenge for Maggie, who is used to being a factory scene, to know that the special reports in Dong Chang are full of crises from time to time."
6. "梁敏巧哭訴阿媽爛賭輸層樓悲慘身世揭秘丨星桄伴我心" [Maggie Leung Tearfully Reveals Her Mother's Gambling Problem Lost Them a Flat — Tragic Backstory Uncovered丨'Starlight Walk With Me']. East Week (in Chinese). 2024-11-26. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "梁敏巧參選2019年香港小姐入行，雖然當年未有獲得任何獎項，但她就靠《東張西望》成功打響名堂。兒時的梁敏巧已經擁有一副明星相，五官標緻，十分可愛。... 儘管有一個廿四孝爸爸，但Maggie坦言自己在一個不健康的家庭中成長，皆因有一個爛賭的媽媽。"
  From Google Translate: "Maggie Leung entered the industry by contesting Miss Hong Kong 2019. Although she did not win any awards, she succeeded in making a name for herself with "East and West". As a child, Leung Min-chiu already had a star-like appearance, with beautiful features and very cute... Despite having a filial father, Maggie admitted that she grew up in an unhealthy family because of a bad gambling mother."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Maggie Leung (Chinese: 梁敏巧) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a evaluation on the sources provided by User:Cunard?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sleek Flow

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

Article is about a startup that fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NCORP). There aren't sources that discusses the subject in depth, and the sources are mostly sponsored, routine announcements of raisings etc..., and talk about the founder other than the business itself. Also note that this source, while it meets WP:SIGCOV, it might also be sponsored by the way. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT, including the one listed in Hotelier which is unbylined and likely churnalism or sponsored. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the company is not very old, but it has garnered significant press in several reputable sources. Complies with WP:NCORP. SailabK (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources in the article that provide significant and independent coverage. My own search also found several other reliable sources. The article's current state could benefit from editing, particularly in the introduction.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the 2 keep !votes who have very few edits outside this AfD, I will ask for a list of the "significant coverage" that shows this meets WP:NCORP as I am not seeing it and apparently neither did the nominator. Prior to listing a WALLOFTEXT, keep WP:NEWSORGINDIA in mind. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the how many edits you have. This is all about the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for Companies. And this topic fulfill WP:NCORP with underlying proof of significant coverage. SailabK (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. That accompanied by the fact you have not been able to show how this meets NCORP is considered by closing admins as AfD is NOT a vote count. If you are able to show the sources that "fulfill" NCORP, I would be happy to review, but so far you failed to do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glad to see the vague Keep !votes being called out - needs to happen more often IMHO. None of the references I can find meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. We have advertorials, mere mentions, articles that rely entirely on information provided by company execs or regurgitated press releases. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you're going to !vote keep, please list the sources you think are the best so other editors have something to go by.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage to suggest this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill AI/SaaS company going about its business and raising funding. Yuvaank (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies

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

Article is about a private academic/educational organization. There are only 3 sources: and all 3 are from the organization's own website.

Hence, no independent sources, therefore fails the WP:V and WP:Notability requirements.

Log says that an article of the same name was deleted in the past, but I cannot find that older AfD. Noleander (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-known independent institution in Hong Kong. Multiple local news agencies have reported findings of such institute which they are well cited.

https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/article/20250328/s00002/1743099198748/%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%9E%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF-63-%E6%8C%87%E7%8F%BE%E9%9D%9E%E8%B2%B7%E6%A8%93%E6%99%82%E6%A9%9F-42-%E6%96%99%E4%BE%86%E5%B9%B4%E8%B7%8C%E5%83%B9

https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20241111/mobile/bkn-20241111134821159-1111_00822_001.html

https://www.inmediahk.net/node/%E6%94%BF%E7%B6%93/%E3%80%90%E8%B2%A1%E6%94%BF%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E6%A1%88%E3%80%91%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF%EF%BC%9A%E4%BA%94%E6%88%90%E5%8D%8A%E5%B8%82%E6%B0%91%E6%84%9F%E4%B8%8D%E6%BB%BF-%E6%BB%BF%E6%84%8F%E5%83%858%EF%BC%85

Articles from secondary sources on this institute include

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%9A%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80/7260339

https://onthinktanks.org/think-tank/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%9E%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80/

Please let me know if you are unsatisfied with what I have provided and would like more or something else, thank you. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three sources cite the organization's work without anything about the organization itself. The Baidu Baike entry is another online encyclopedia, and onthinktanks.org is a directory listing with content likely provided by the organization. Oblivy (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Hi there I’m not sure if you would have the time of doing so but could you please take a look and see if you could try finding related sources to this article, since you have similarly done so in the past. Thank you very much. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous mentions of the institute in sources which has made it difficult to determine whether there is significant coverage of it. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This institute has been cited hundreds of times on Jstor. [9] Their polls are regularly covered in the news, e.g. SCMP: [10][11][12], NYT: [13][14][15][16]. They are also called variations like "the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at Chinese University" or "Hong Kong Institute of Asia Pacific Studies" (no hyphen) or the abbreviated "HKIAPS". I haven't found sigcov yet but I am not sure if meeting the GNG is required here; similar to our standards for academics and newspapers, I think the bar should be lower here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the previous deletion was a speedy under WP:A7 from 15 years ago. [17] There was no AfD and that speedy deletion, being a content issue and not a notability issue, should have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions

Chen Cheng-kuan

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

No sources to support notability Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Taiwan. Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NBADMINTON. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the article fails basic critera WP:SPORTBASIC. Stvbastian (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Republic of China

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

This is a random assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together. Some of the people listed have very tenuous connections, e.g. Syngman Rhee, Alexander von Falkenhausen. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, China, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a reason to delete article. An article of the same name already exists in Chinese Wikipedia, and it is a political term that is also used in reality. In the case of Rhee or Falkenhausen, the link also exists in Chinese Wikipedia, but you can remove it if it's unnecessary; there's no reason why the whole article should be deleted. ProgramT (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political term. It is a phrase, like Pro-Israel or Pro-Greenland. Also, this is not the Chinese Wikipedia. The fact that Rhee and Falkenhausen are linked there undermine that Wikipedia's credibility. "Republic of China"/"ROC" is mentioned exactly once in Rhee's article, in the caption identifying Chiang Kai-shek. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A content dispute (regarding the examples of Rhee and von Falkenhausen) is not grounds for deletion. Having an "assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together" is also not grounds for deletion; list articles are a thing, as are similarly-named and scoped articles like Pro-Americanism and Russophilia. "Other thing exists" arguments aren't policy-based, but I don't see a proposal here based on deletion policy and cannot figure out what the deletion rationale could be. The nominator's disagreements seem to be limited to a content dispute concerning possible WP:OR, rather than a denial of this topic's notability or existence. Yue🌙 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator had argued for deletion based on WP:SYNTH, with supporting evidence/analysis, I may be sympathetic. But instead they questioned whether Falkenhausen, who served in the military of the ROC, can be called "pro-ROC", which makes this very hard to take seriously. As such, I essentially agree with the two others above that this should be closed as a procedural keep; it could even be argued that this falls under speedy keep criteria 1 or 3. Toadspike [Talk] 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article seems to be a pervasive work of WP:SYNTH that is syncretizing the views of several distinct people based on a tenuous connection to a position on Taiwan. Significant concern regarding accuracy of any citations in this. An article on this topic (albeit one with perhaps a less clumsy name) could definitely exist but I think this one needs WP:TNT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. A TNT may be appropriate here. There is a lot of unsourced and poorly-sourced content. But the article tries to discuss a notable topic (the distinction between "pro-Taiwan" and "pro-ROC") and I'm not sure if deletion is better than trying to clean it up. Toadspike [Talk] 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up would have to start with manually reviewing every citation to see if it actually supports what is claimed for it. It's not a small task. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "A random assortment of info all lumped together" is a perfectly good nomination statement for a WP:TNT delete. So - does it need TNT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am solidly neutral on a TNT. The content isn't ideal, but it's not that bad. OTOH I currently don't have the bandwidth to give it the serious makeover it needs. Toadspike [Talk] 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]