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[edit]

Liaoning Flying Leopards–Sichuan Blue Whales brawl[edit]

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

Neutral nom on behalf of an IP who stated: Zhanghang0704 only ever made 6 edits, all over the course of 3 days in late March 2016: the creation of this article, 4 more edits to it, and an edit to Liaoning Flying Leopards. I believe this article is a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as the brawl (which happened 5 days before this article's creation) does not appear to have sustained coverage - to say nothing of the article itself being extremely barebones despite a whopping 9 references. Star Mississippi 00:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and China. Star Mississippi 00:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS applies here with a complete lack of sustained coverage, to say nothing of the WP:NPOV issues and the fact of the article being created by a SPA. Let'srun (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOTNEWS and hardly notable. ADifferentMan (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 CBA Playoffs#Finals (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. 2016 CBA Playoffs#Finals already mentions this brawl.
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) 11:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let'srun (talk · contribs) and ADifferentMan (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to 2016 CBA Playoffs#Finals per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Penghu[edit]

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

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though the small list can still be summarised on the main Penghu article. Dympies (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833[edit]

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

Non-notable accident. No sustained continued coverage, no lasting effects have been demonstrated and no in-depth coverage generated from the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and China. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is clearly lasting coverage – simply search "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报" and you will find several articles on the recently-released report by the CAAC, like this one [1]. Keep in mind that news sourcing in China is already sparse to begin with. This coverage is far beyond what I would expect for notability. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the information from that source/the CAAC report to the article. It is source ten, in the last paragraph. Toadspike [Talk] 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument still stands. There is clearly not sustained continued coverage, news reports only appeared because the final report was released. There was practically barely any coverage whatsoever of the accident between when the accident happened and the release of the final report other than announcements by the CAAC. I can't find any lasting effects that have been generated by this accident and fining those related/involved in the accident certainly won't help develop the aviation industry. Reading the safety recommendations from a translated version of the Final Report, the recommendations don't seem to be that significant in regards to improvement in the long term. In my opinion, the accident isn't particularly noteworthy in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. My view of sustained, continued coverage seems to differ from yours. To me, having several news articles about the event over two years is a sufficiently significant period of time (sustained), and is not a burst or spike of news reports (there were several such "bursts") or an event only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion (continued).

Separately, I must re-emphasize the point that this is a country with barely any news reporting to begin with, especially of disasters and tragedies. And you can bet that there will be lasting effects, we just won't see them, since they'll be implemented behind-the-scenes by some mid-level official doing his best to enforce national policy and prevent future embarrassment. I am much less concerned with recentism here than I am with geographic bias. Toadspike [Talk] 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While geographic bias may play a factor in the amount of international news coverage, that does not mean there can't be any (excluding chinese news coverage). The article had multiple international news agencies covering this on the day of the accident (none after the accident).

Another issue regarding this article is that most if not all news coverage regarding this accident consist of primary sources with barely any secondary sources available. Most sources only covered the topic when the accident happened and when the CAAC published their announcements which certainly is in the realm of WP:NOTNEWS.

When taking a look at the sources given when typing "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报", it's clear that news coverage regarding the release of the final report only repeat what was stated by the CAAC in its final report with no real analysis.

Whilst there may be lasting effects, the recommendations given don't seem to be particularly impressive such as "cockpit tidiness". Whilst aviation safety cannot be perfect, most of these recommendations should've long been implemented such as better CRM training. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong related deletions[edit]

Patricia Sauthoff[edit]

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions[edit]

List of battles in Penghu[edit]

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

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though the small list can still be summarised on the main Penghu article. Dympies (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Raper[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 3 of the 4 sources are primary from her employer. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out, three sources are from employer. The remaining source is an interview. With due consideration to the subtleties of WP:IV I am of the view that the Asia Society interview does not qualify as a WP:RS in the context of determining whether the subject is notable. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too have come up empty-handed after searching for sources. I would like to emphasize the nom's point that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Toadspike [Talk] 08:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]