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

Zhu Yudong

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

I can’t see any in depth coverage in RIS to indicate that this subject is notable. There may be sources in Chinese I didn’t manage to turn up - if not this article should go. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and China. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been finding Chinese language sources for this subject, who seems to be a pretty famous director. I haven't yet found any RS that demonstrate individual notability, but I'll look again later today and report my findings or not findings as applicable. Our article is longer than his Baidu page, which seems kinda sus. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ogan

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

CEO of a small hedge fund, not large enough to lend notability to either; not long out of university, with few publications. The references are about related topics but not about Ogan, who is mentioned tangetially if at all. Searches find routine listing and social media (with insufficient followers to use that to justify notability). Klbrain (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The majority of the articles are about Tesla or a Chinese car company; Ogan is asked about what he thinks about xyz thing... None of these are about Ogan. There is no coverage about this individual and this shows a lack of notability. I don't find any articles we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manchukuo Government

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

This seems to have been a joke in 2009, and now it's over. WP:N isn't temporary, but 2/3rds of the sources aren't reliable or aren't primary about the topic, leaving what I count as three-to-five bemused NOWNews/Ming Pao pieces that read more like Buzzfeed than Buzzfeed News. Maybe that sounds like enough to others, but given the facile substance I really don't think they need an article. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Royalty and nobility, and China. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to make myself late for work again so not really much time to look for sources etc., but my initial impression is a slight leaning merge to Manchukuo § In popular culture. Please remind me to circle back this week. I've got a lot going on and will likely forget. Folly Mox (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't more sources. Everything I'm finding with keywords in English or Chinese falls into one of three buckets: 1. Wikimedia sites 2. "official" websites of the group 3. false positives.
This does seem to be some kind of joke, or perhaps an earnestly serious effort by a half dozen college students with no self-awareness, that reads as a joke to everyone else. In any case, it certainly doesn't deserve treatment as a government in exile nor as a legitimate independence movement.
It is – to me – extremely funny that the second emperor elected by the group was a kid in New York with no claims of ties to Manchuria, and I think the absurdity of this whole thing deserves preservation, probably against content guidelines, so I'm landing at merge, and like Microplastic Consumer's merge target suggestion below equally well as my own suggestion above. Folly Mox (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for funsies that the zh.wp article is disambiguated with (Internet Country), and ==See also==s Micronation. Folly Mox (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Manchurian Nationalism, the government in exile doesn't seem to be very serious. Seems to be either run by trolls or Japanese nationalists as opposed to a serious independence movement Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Chen

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Promo article. Fjnat (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. They are at least three sources in the article that gives him significant coverage. Subject had won and received nominations for various awards alongside notable Chinese entrepreneurs. Nothing looks promotional in the article but if they exist AFD is not a place to treat promotional issues, it should be cleaned up. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received WP:SIGCOV in RS and satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the subject has received WP:SIGCOV in RS because he has not appeared in RS at all. None of the refs cited in the article are reliable sources and most of them are written in a promotional tone, especially the Chinese ones. A further in-depth search also failed to show any reliable, independent secondary sources about him. Fjnat (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you’ve fully read the link that the page already contains. Alternatively, you might be viewing the page from your own perspective, questioning the media’s fairness without providing reliable evidence, simply claiming it’s unreliable. The latest update I’ve seen comes from the Retures articles.[[1]] 114.45.26.245 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: No effective references to establish notability. No sign of independent sigcov. The subject has NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

1).None of the references cited in the article are reliable sources and most of them are written in a promotional tone, especially the Chinese ones.

2).The "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is NOT published by Fortune Magazine, but by the Chinese version of the magazine. The Chinese version of the magazine is far less reliable than that of the English version. The "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is far less influential and recognizable than that of the Fortune Magazine's 40 under 40 List. Being included on the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" doesn't establish notability. As for the rest of the nominations and awards, they do even less to establish notability.

3).A further in-depth search also failed to show any reliable, independent secondary sources about him. Fjnat (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator and your nomination statement is your deletion comment/vote. You cannot vote twice. Closing admin please take note of this. Ednabrenze (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it passes notability guidelines. This reporting by China Daily [2] and this from China News Network [3] are reliable and significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Aadditionally, the subject has been listed in the Fortune China 40 Business Elites Under 40 and has also appeared in the Shanghai Top Ten Internet Entrepreneurs as well as being nominated for Green China Person of the Year 2020-2021. These are significant business notability particularly in China – a country of over a billion people. The Fortune China 40 Business Elites Under 40 is credible, reliable and notable in China and all count for the subject’s notability. Teto Amo (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the creator of the article and it's no surprise that you voted to keep it. The content of the China Daily story is clearly promotional. Both China Daily and China News Network have low reputations and little reliability. None of them are reliable and significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Fjnat (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being selected as one of the "Top 10 Internet Entrepreneurs in Shanghai" and being nominated for "Green China Person of the Year" doesn't mean anything. They don't matter at all because their influence is insignificant. The "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is far less influential and recognizable than that of the Fortune Magazine's 40 Under 40 List. More importantly, the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is a commercialized project, and any Chinese entrepreneur under the age of 40 can apply on his or her own by filling out the form. Therefore, being included on the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" doesn't establish notability. Fjnat (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s really funny to see you using such discriminatory and offensive language. Moreover, I think you might not know how the internal process system of Under40 works.First of all, while the platform does allow for public submissions, it is not open to just anyone, so please don’t confuse the facts. There are certain thresholds for financing, profitability, and even the requirement for having outstanding products in the industry. Whether it’s Forbes or Fortune in China, or any regional version, they all adhere to principles of fairness and justice. It’s not about buying a spot on the list with money or getting selected by just filling out a form. I hope the editor can understand that international media groups have very strong principles of media integrity, regardless of the country. The list itself does not involve any fees, and only if additional sponsorship is required after the list is produced will there be any business expenses. For more information, please check the link below:FAQ link 114.45.26.245 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fjnat (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep before search and review of the cited references show WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable secondary sources. Runmastery (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Forbes has become deprecated. Does not pass GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Forbes in the article and Forbes is not cited as reference in it. Could you please point out the Forbes that has become deprecated and rendered the subject of the article non notable? You may need to review the article and its sources again. The 40 under 40 listed in the article comes from Fortune Magazine not Forbes. I think this is an oversight on your part given your experience as a former admin. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that "The 40 Under 40" listed in the article IS NOT from Fortune Magazine but Fortune China (the Chinese version of the magazine). The Chinese version of the magazine is far less reliable than that of the English version. The 40 Under 40 List in the article is actually the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List". Fjnat (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was an oversight on Bearian's part, as he is an experienced lawyer, teacher, and Wikipedia user. He has become worried, as of July 2024, that certain sources cited are not as reliable as they used to be. In particular, Who's Who, Forbes, and the "Grey Lady" have made editorial decisions that make them less reliable than even four years ago [4]. Bearian is worried about RS, especially Forbes. The first sentence expresses his concern about the reliability of Forbes, and the second sentence is his opinion that the subject Does not pass GNG. I agree with Bearian that the subject does not pass GNG. And I think his opinion is important because the subject does not appear in RS. Fjnat (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t quite understand why this editor differentiates between Fortune and Fortune China, and then directly claims that their information is unreliable. I’d like to ask: would you differentiate between Fortune and Fortune Middle East or UK and say that they are unreliable? Fortune is a reputable global media group, and they establish branches in different countries to delve into regional issues. According to the editor’s perspective, does that mean other versions are unreliable and only the main Fortune is credible? This is my concern. 114.45.26.245 (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the website of Fortune, and their own site is very clear about these matters [[5]]. I wonder if this editor has a bias against China, to the point where they believe that any news coming from China is unreliable, even if it’s from international media's Chinese editions. This attitude seems to reflect a lack of understanding. After all, foreign media in China is neither controlled by the government nor by commercial interests. 114.45.26.245 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a new citation[6] from Reuters. Other editors and admins please take note of the new citation. The subject is mentioned at least 12 times in this latest citation and helps strengthen its WP:GNG. Teto Amo (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only two reports that fit the profile of a recognizable source are really just propaganda reports, and while the China Daily is certainly authoritative, this one is very brief and not in-depth, with a distinctly propagandistic tone, like a press announcement. So does the China News Network's. And there are no other valid third-party reports.Jimike yep (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the two sources that "fit the profile" and then list the ones that you said are "just propaganda". The WP:GNG requirement states that a significant coverage in at least three reliable sources are needed to show notability of a subject of an article. You need to know AFD discussion is based on policy issues and strong evidence to support your view. There are already more than three sources with significant coverage from Reuters, China Daily and China News Network among others. This is your first ever vote in the AFD and you do not appear to understand the policy before voting in this AFD. You should have taken time to study and understand the policy before voting here. You have never created a single article; how will you understand the policy? Teto Amo (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You created this page and I have to say that you may have a special relationship with this person, and I read your comments above that are defending this person, and crucially you have an attacking tone to them, I think it would be a good idea to ask Wikipedia or someone more authoritative to comment on this deletion option. Jimike yep (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has now been updated with more citations from internationally and Wikipedia recognized sources including Reuters, Bloomberg and other RS news sites. Teto Amo (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong related deletions

Manchukuo Government

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

This seems to have been a joke in 2009, and now it's over. WP:N isn't temporary, but 2/3rds of the sources aren't reliable or aren't primary about the topic, leaving what I count as three-to-five bemused NOWNews/Ming Pao pieces that read more like Buzzfeed than Buzzfeed News. Maybe that sounds like enough to others, but given the facile substance I really don't think they need an article. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Royalty and nobility, and China. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to make myself late for work again so not really much time to look for sources etc., but my initial impression is a slight leaning merge to Manchukuo § In popular culture. Please remind me to circle back this week. I've got a lot going on and will likely forget. Folly Mox (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't more sources. Everything I'm finding with keywords in English or Chinese falls into one of three buckets: 1. Wikimedia sites 2. "official" websites of the group 3. false positives.
This does seem to be some kind of joke, or perhaps an earnestly serious effort by a half dozen college students with no self-awareness, that reads as a joke to everyone else. In any case, it certainly doesn't deserve treatment as a government in exile nor as a legitimate independence movement.
It is – to me – extremely funny that the second emperor elected by the group was a kid in New York with no claims of ties to Manchuria, and I think the absurdity of this whole thing deserves preservation, probably against content guidelines, so I'm landing at merge, and like Microplastic Consumer's merge target suggestion below equally well as my own suggestion above. Folly Mox (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for funsies that the zh.wp article is disambiguated with (Internet Country), and ==See also==s Micronation. Folly Mox (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Manchurian Nationalism, the government in exile doesn't seem to be very serious. Seems to be either run by trolls or Japanese nationalists as opposed to a serious independence movement Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions