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

SweetSpecter

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT and WP:PERP. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Xiaolong (coast guard)

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

Typical case of WP:1E; otherwise non-notable. To be awarded bravery medals etc posthumously by the state doesn't change that. Schwede 66 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Police, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No other publicly available case of Chinese coast guardsmen(To be exact, the post-2013 chinese coast guard, not the pre-2013 border defense coast guard with the same english name that currently lacks an article) dying in the line of duty. Also had significant coverage. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. - Amigao (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the subject is no longer alive, please see Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. The AFD fails both criteria 2 and 3. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this in a situation similar to the Yang Jia article(except the roles are reversed):

Both are notable mainly due to one event, and both of the articles mainly focus on the people themselves because most of the media coverage focused on the person.

I am open to renaming it to "Death of Wang Xiaolong" instead of deletion, though most of the coverage on him focuses on his entire career and the subject himself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly WP:1E. WP:NOTBLP1E supports deletion as (1) subject only notable for a single event, (2) was low profile outside this event, and (3) the event was not significant and Wang's role was neither substantial nor well documented. I'd normally say keep due to receiving a significant honor, but it doesn't look like it was awarded for personal achievements. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:

This is the first publicly avaliable case since 2013 of a coast guardsman getting killed in action. Additionally, this was highly documented in Chinese media, particularly southern china. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, being the first coast guard to die is not a notability criterion. Secondly, the coverage is not significant as it is not independent; it's all Chinese media praising someone who received a state award as part of a propaganda effort. That said, merging this information into China Coast Guard#Line of duty deaths is a reasonable AtD. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just rename. WP:1 says the rule is to cover the event, and so not to have another article. We do not have another article on the event. Just put "death of" in front of the title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree, but as stated above, this is sort of a similar situation to how we have the article named Yang Jia but not "2008 Zhabei attacks", since a lot of media attention was also about the subject himself. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yao Yuanjun

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

Typical case of WP:1E; otherwise non-notable. Schwede 66 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Schwede 66 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Event was highly covered and also pretty notable thanks to the Police dog. Subject was notable both in 2011(when he died) and 2021 (when the video of his police dog came out). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. - Amigao (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we have an article about the event. Or just add "Death of" to the title. WP:BIO1E does not suggest deletion, it suggests renaming or merging. We could add "death of" to the title.

What 1E says is this: 'When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. ... Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.'

Nowhere here suggests deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this, however the subject is also notable in the aspect of the story about his police dog Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that also kind of about the event though? I oppose deletion in any case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion, but the subject gained significant coverage in two separate events which are interlinked:

In 2011 when he was killed in action(now, this itself would not guarantee notability, but it shows he has been covered for multiple events)
In 2021 when the CCTV-7 video went viral of his police dog waiting for him.

Either way, I would support keeping the article. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also support changing the title to include "Death of ...." as this person appears to be primarily notable for the manner of his death. Also the behaviour of his police dog appears notable because of his death and contributes to persistent coverage of the death. As already observed, WP:BIO1E is more about what to write the article about and the article should be about the event, not the person. The article cites a dozen sources, although all are in Chinese. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims 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.

Additionally, more secondary sources will likely come soon to increase notability, this article was sort of rushed a little bit, as I originally intended for this to simply be a section in the 2015 Tianjin Explosions article. 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]

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 [1][2][3][4]. 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]

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]

Deng Xiaolan

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

Questionable notability. This article should be moved to draft. Amigao (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Music, Politics, Olympics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the biography is rather comprehensive, and there exists a comparable article on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have incorporated more sources and information to satisfy the inclusion criteria. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This seems like WP:MILL CCP member with a bit of propaganda press. Adding some of that detail to her father's (much more notable person) page would be DUE. I think the press she does get is more because her father was so notable. For Americans this would be like having a biography for Henry Luce III. Czarking0 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2: I'll stop messaging you if it is too much but I thought you might like to look at this one. Czarking0 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha don't worry, it's ok. Hmm, well I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria but the question seems to be what makes her independently notable? Is there enough coverage by reliable sources? The Account 2 (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of her to meet WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lonsdale (entrepreneur)

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

Only 1 article links to this. Seems rather promotional. Marked for COI concerns noting edits from this editor. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, China, Hong Kong, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOM. Appears promotional, with little to justify an article. Even with the terribly low bar for WP:GNG, this article appears to fail. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Editors who work for the subject of an article should refrain from editing their bosses' page. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital

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

Similar to the case of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital, this hospital also appears to fail WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no way a 95-year-old, 880-bed hospital affiliated to (possibly) the best medical university in China is not notable. I'm not going to do a proper source search just this moment, but I will provide references for my claims: [5][6]. Toadspike [Talk] 00:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This hospital is classified as a Grade A Tertiary Hospital, which means it is one of the highest-level hospitals officially accredited by the Chinese government. It is a non-profit public institution, not commercially operated, and treats tens of thousands of patients annually. Frankly speaking, one reason I focus on writing entries about large public hospitals is to help prevent misleading commercial promotion by smaller private hospitals. The references cited are based on the most authoritative and professional data sources available regarding local healthcare conditions. Has the proposer fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing this content seriously? Have they conducted any academic searches or reviewed relevant literature? I was able to retrieve numerous academic papers through Google Scholar. Or is the proposer simply speculating based on personal unfamiliarity? Such an attitude is neither friendly nor consistent with the rigor and responsibility that this task requires.--Amazingloong (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GTrang What's your assessment of the existing Chinese sources available in Google, Google News, Google Books, for example? Any other databases you searched? --MarioGom (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tons of sourcing over in GScholar, [7], [8] deal with the hospital. These are studies of diseases taking place within the patient population of the hospital [9], [10]. Last two might be considered primary, but they help show the importance of the hospital. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article desperately needs improvement in the form of better sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Additionally, there is plenty of SIGCOV to demonstrate the subject’s notability in a manner that satisfies the relevant guidelines for the subject. ZachH007 (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong related deletions

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]

Chris Lonsdale (entrepreneur)

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

Only 1 article links to this. Seems rather promotional. Marked for COI concerns noting edits from this editor. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, China, Hong Kong, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOM. Appears promotional, with little to justify an article. Even with the terribly low bar for WP:GNG, this article appears to fail. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Editors who work for the subject of an article should refrain from editing their bosses' page. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 21 May 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]

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. [11] Their polls are regularly covered in the news, e.g. SCMP: [12][13][14], NYT: [15][16][17][18]. 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. [19] 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]

Ho Yi

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

Little established notability; sparse amount of sources available online or offline while article used to have iMDb as most sources. Subject edited own article, which has not been properly maintained to denote his significance and notability to be kept as an article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Hong Kong. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:19, 12 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. Ng, Hung 吳雄 (2015-07-14). "中學念本地左校黃浩義香港經歷文革" [Attended Local Leftist School in Secondary School: Wong Ho-yee Experienced Cultural Revolution in Hong Kong]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-05-04. Retrieved 2025-05-04.
  The article notes: "香港「舞台劇之父」黃浩義長居上海，偶而回港為這片鄉土澆上一瓢清泉，其中一瓢是2013年8月拍成的電影《紅色的迴廊》（Red Passage）。奈何劇本早在2009年已寫好，先遇上資金、取景的困難，後遇上政治熱帶氣旋帶來的狂風暴雨，至今未有發行商願意放映。 ... 片中男主角從官校轉到左校，他就是黃浩義本人。... 結果，黃浩義去另一地方拍英國旗再把畫面合併。雖然拍攝在暑假進行，但傳媒竟找上門拜訪他。... 政治改變思想，思想改變命運，黃浩義中三就轉校，開涼茶舖的父親總算及時轉軚，才有了今天的舞台劇之父。"
  From Google Translate: "Hong Kong's 'Father of Stage Play' Wong Ho Yi has lived in Shanghai for a long time. He occasionally returns to Hong Kong to bring some fresh air to his hometown. One of his contributions was the movie 'Red Passage' which was made in August 2013. Unfortunately, the script was written as early as 2009, but it first encountered difficulties in funding and location selection, and then encountered the storm brought by the political tropical cyclone. So far, no distributor is willing to screen it. ... The protagonist in the film transferred from the official school to the left school, and he was Wong Ho Yi himself. ... As a result, Wong Ho Yi went to another place to take pictures of the British flag and then merged the images. Although the filming took place during the summer vacation, the media came to visit him. ... Politics changes thoughts, thoughts change destiny. Wong Ho Yi changed schools in Form 3, and his father, who ran a herbal tea shop, finally changed his mind in time, and he became the father of stage plays today."
2. Dong, Jin 董進 (2013-04-28). "香港舞台劇之父開創無厘頭風格后被周星馳借鑒" [Father of Hong Kong Stage Drama Pioneered Absurdist Style, Later Borrowed by Stephen Chow]. Chongqing Morning Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-11-10. Retrieved 2025-05-04 – via People's Daily.
  The article notes: "黃浩義1983年在港創辦香港青年劇團，成為第一代專業搞戲劇的。... 作為導演，黃浩義執導了不少優秀的舞台劇，而作為演員，黃浩義除了參演眾多港台劇，還在多部好萊塢電影中擔任角色，與布拉德·彼特(《間諜游戲》)、皮爾斯·布魯斯南（《007之擇日而亡》）都對過戲。聊起在好萊塢拍戲經歷，黃浩義很有感觸。"
  From Google Translate: "Wong founded the Hong Kong Youth Theater Company in Hong Kong in 1983, becoming the first generation of professional theater practitioners. ... As a director, Wong has directed many outstanding stage plays, and as an actor, Wong has appeared in many Hong Kong and Taiwan dramas, and has also played roles in several Hollywood films, starring with Brad Pitt ("Spy Game") and Pierce Brosnan ("007's Death"). When he talked about his experience of filming in Hollywood, Wong was very touched."
3. Sek, Kei 石琪 (2019-11-17). "粗口和紅色迴廊" [Profanity and the Red Corridor]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. S5.
  The article notes: "大家於是提及香港劇場，卅多年前最早把粗口引進「大雅之堂」，開路先鋒是黃浩義，一九八六年把美國著名粗口劇《美國水牛》翻譯演出，改名《鉤心鬥角》，台上猛講粵語粗口，大受青年學生歡迎，紛紛起哄，創下場場數特多的紀錄。... 黃浩義在香港劇壇的創舉不少，移居英國及上海也在演藝界創造一些先例。其實二○一四年他自編自導了一部很特別的香港獨立片《紅色的迴廊》，以他本身的少年經歷，描述七十年代初一個男生，因父親愛國，送他入香港左派中學，該校追隨大陸文革作風，念《毛語錄》，忠字舞，批批跳鬥，很「恐怖」。"
  From Google Translate: "Everyone then mentioned Hong Kong theatre, which was the first to introduce swear words into the "classical arena" more than 30 years ago. The pioneer was Wong Ho Yi, who translated and performed the famous American swear play "American Buffalo" in 1986, renamed it "Intrigue", and used Cantonese swear words on stage, which was very popular among young students. They all cheered and set a record for the number of performances. ... Wong Hoyi has made many innovations in the Hong Kong theatre scene, and his move to the UK and Shanghai also created some precedents in the entertainment industry. In fact, in 2014, he wrote and directed a very special Hong Kong independent film "Red Corridor", which was based on his own teenage experience and described a boy in the early 1970s who was sent to a leftist middle school in Hong Kong because of his patriotic father. The school followed the style of the Cultural Revolution in mainland China, reading "Quotations from Chairman Mao", doing the loyalty dance, and dancing criticisms. It was very "scary"."
4. Sek, Kei 石琪 (2014-11-15). "入讀左校的日子" [The Days of Enrolling in the Leftist School]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. D5.
  The article notes: "在「香港亞洲影展」看了黃浩義自編自導自製新片《紅色的迴廊》。黃浩義是本港資深話劇人，最具爭議性是廿多年前自導自演《勾心鬥角》，即美國著名粗口劇《美國水牛》的粵語版，大講粵語粗口，多次重演都滿座，成為本港舞台爆粗的先驅。隨後他的獨立電影《雷雨》改編曹禺名劇，涉及性問題也有爭議，但票房失利。"
  From Google Translate: "I watched the new film "Red Corridor" written, directed and produced by Wong Hoyi at the "Hong Kong Asian Film Festival". Wong Hoyi is a senior dramatist in Hong Kong. His most controversial work is "Intrigue" which he directed and starred in more than 20 years ago. It is the Cantonese version of the famous American foul-mouthed play "American Buffalo". He used a lot of Cantonese foul language and the theaters were always full during many re-performances, making him a pioneer of swearing on the Hong Kong stage. His subsequent independent film Thunderstorm, adapted from Cao Yu's famous play, also controversially dealt with sexual issues, but failed at the box office."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wong Ho Yi (traditional Chinese: 黃浩義; simplified Chinese: 黄浩义) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources provided by Cunard; hopefully these references can be placed in the article during or following the discussion as right now there are still quite a few unreferenced passages. -- Recon rabbit 17:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, but reads like a vanity piece, needs rewriting from scratch.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions