Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:
  1. 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, 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to China.
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:
Purge page cache watch


China

Manitoba China Times

Manitoba China Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG. The best source I could find was this entry in a database of minority media, but I couldn't find any other usable sources. – Teratix 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • del nonnotable printed freebie. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wu Yao (Miko)

Wu Yao (Miko) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable. Very trivial coverage in the listed sources. No significant work. ToT89 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Xu Shiyin

Xu Shiyin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable. Very trivial coverage in the listed sources. No significant work. ToT89 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Jiang Shen (Debbie)

Jiang Shen (Debbie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable. Very trivial coverage in the listed sources. No significant work. ToT89 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Liu Haocun

Liu Haocun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Actress who falls under too soon, so far has had just one role. Now maybe someday she will qualify for a article, but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, so far she has had 0 role. That film hasn't been released and nobody knows how much screen time she got, if at all. There's virtually no biographical information anyway. Timmyshin (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Meiling Melançon

Meiling Melançon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

the article is poorly sourced and no additional sources of note can be found. Additionally, the person is not notable or remarkable in any way. She is little more than an extra in two films Coffee312 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep. Long list of IMDb roles. Some of the films are notable and have their own articles. Does not appear to fail WP:NACTOR, although it the notability guidelines are not very specific and open to interpretation. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 07:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The Violence of Gender

The Violence of Gender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

a short exhibition which probably has no enduring historical significance, how can it be possible to create an article for a single museum exhibition like this, otherwise all museums should by far have a long lists of articles of their exhibitions and talks. 淺藍雪 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: - Some background on the article: It was created as part of the Asia Art Archive Women in Art Edit-a-thon in Hong Kong, in which new users are asked to write about female artists and art-related articles. A participant, who was a brand new user, wished to create an article on the exhibit. I decided she could do it after she found one local news article (in Chinese) from The Stand News [zh] (立場新聞) and one from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), which would satisfy WP:GNG. As a volunteer at the event I'm aware several articles on other art exhibitions had been created as part of these events. I am interested in knowing whether there is notability criteria specific to art exhibitions (other than GNG), but if not I would use GNG as the guidepost.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Answering my own question I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_Art/Notability#Notability_of_events. I'll quote it from here:
"
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted."
Since Hong Kong is an SAR, it is de facto treated as a small country for the purposes of "national" reporting, so I would count the SCMP as "national" in this regard. The issue is whether this event will exceed the "news cycle" factor.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
"Notability is not temporary", and nothing could convince me that this is not a temporary event, and I really doubt a report from the SCMP would make it non-temporary and different from other normal museum events. It may have notability, but a very short one. I would say it is better to wait for some experts on articles about events to judge.--淺藍雪 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that the SCMP article is a review by Rachel Cheung (SCMP culture reporter) that goes in detail about the exhibit's themes and the reviewer's opinion of the works, not merely a news announcement that the exhibit's happening. A review of the exhibit would make the case of notability much stronger. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I still do not think a review is enough to make the event non-temporary, and "the SCMP is a national media" does not make sense to me either.--淺藍雪 20:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: "the SCMP is a national media" - The SCMP is treated as a newspaper of record of Hong Kong (essentially one of the most important newspapers). Secondly, while Hong Kong is under Chinese sovereignty, it maintains its own borders and customs, autonomous government, currency, etc., and therefore is treated similarly to a small country. This makes the SCMP a "national" publication of Hong Kong. The guidelines on events say "national" coverage has more weight than strictly "local". WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I interpret WP:NTEMP as saying that once notability is established, it is permanent. The temporary nature of the subject is irrelevant: The Armory Show is notable, even though it only lasted 26 days. In retrospect that exhibit was very significant. But we're not here to decide if The Violence of Gender is historically significant (it's too early to tell) but if there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. Vexations (talk)
There are two independent published sources that make commentary on the subject: SCMP review and The Stand News (in Chinese) - you can google translate to see what this one says, roughly WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Three, I think. I added a review by Katherine Volk. Vexations (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! The publisher is CoBo Social International Co., Limited and the author of the review is a freelance journalist. I think I can say Keep for this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the sources are not adequate to establish notability over time. The Armory show, mentioned above, is notable because it has occurred over time and been very widely reviewed. This is a single exhibition with three reviews. If we say that's enough, then we could apply the same criteria to tens of thousands of shows a year. Additionally the only thing the article tells me is that it happened ona certain date, a list of artists participated, and then it goes on to paraphrase the SCMP. We aren't a directory of things that happened, nor are we a news source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The notability standard for books, for example, is at least two independent secondary sources giving commentary on the subject. The SCMP gives an analysis and commentary, and articles are supposed to paraphrase that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not persuaded that short exhibitions are inherently non-notable. WP:NEVENTS seems to suggest the topic might or might not be notable but, since this guideline claims to be interpreting pre-existing guidelines I'll refer to WP:N where the guidance indicates the topic may be presumed to merit an article. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)




Hong Kong related deletions

China Windpower Group

China Windpower Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Just being listed on a stick exchange is not sufficient, see WP:LISTED. I can't find any non-trivial / non-press-release sources about the company. It existss, but WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Publiq

Publiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Publiqnews, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines. アサンキ 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Weak Delete: I was also unable to find any mainstream coverage to signal notability. I also think we need a better way of stopping these cryptocurrencies making their way onto Wikipedia to begin with. Also WP:NOT42 applies to PROD. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Parc Palais

Parc Palais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Per WP:N. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would say there would be many source in Chinese language. However, the common problem is, how significant those coverage in order to allow wiki editor to write a full length article. For "Parc Palais", most of the coverage seem about individual residential unit inside the building complex, so it seem fails GNG for the whole residential blocks as a whole. However, since there is a lot of these residential villages articles from Hong Kong, and their exposure on the media is quite different in length, may be it need a general guide formed by a consensus. I would say if their architectural feature was reported in some book or a lengthy article (e.g. Opus Hong Kong, Lai Tak Tsuen), then it pass GNG. Matthew hk (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, this appears to be the estate mentioned at King's Park, Hong Kong ("The site on which the hospital buildings once were was sold by 1999,[5] and is now a private housing estate,[6]") so maybe a redirect would be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree such redirect. King's Park is an non-administrative area (a neighbourhood, but local never use this term). It is nightmare to read and maintain every "neighbourhood" article of Hong Kong, since the boundary is undefined, those articles contain content that probably not belongs to that neighbourhood, or wrote duplicate copy of articles (well there is way too many Yuen Long articles for example. It also quite a many Tai Po but partially fixed). Parc Palais, according to report, sometimes credited as part of King's Park, sometimes Ho Man Tin. I have to check the map, but Parc Palais may be belongs to Kowloon City District or Yau Tsim Mong District, the electrical district (they de jure administrative districts but de facto just for local councils that almost near to rubber stamp to advise the government, it never equal to the school districts , the police districts or the fire brigade districts or other internal districts of government department, as well as not equal to urban planning plans the OZPs). However, it seem odd to mention one and only one residential village in the District article, then it may need to expand to a full section to at least mention some "notable" (i.e. at least have some citation) one . Matthew hk (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Spine Surgery

Journal of Spine Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Other than the journal's own self-proclaiming of being peer-reviewed, no other sourcing indicating it is. Being from a publisher notorious for producing non-peered reviewed publications, not sure this passes notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could not find any reliable sources not affiliated with the publishing company, and being listed in PubMed along with tens of thousands of other journals is not an indication of notability (trivial mention only). There is also no impact factor for this journal in this list, which in accordance with WP:JOURNALCRIT, strongly suggests that this journal is not frequently cited and is not influential. Hence, the lack of citations and mentions means that WP:GNG is also not fulfilled. ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The editor-in-chief seem an Associate Professor of UNSW [1]. But it seem there is not much source to prove the GNG notability of the journal, nor it was cited by many other articles. However, i am not in this field, i am undecided on keep or delete or not. Matthew hk (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete / Redirect back to AME Publishing Company, as before. Fails WP:NJOURNAL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, restore redirect, protect. Peer review is just a process and whether it is any good depends on the editors and reviewers. In the present case, the publisher has a reputation of weak (if any) peer review. However, this is rather irrelevant to the question of notability: journals with good, stringent peer review can still be non-notable. What clinches the deal here is that this journal is not indexed in any selective database and that there are no independent sources. The journal claims to be included in PubMed, which is correct, but that is only an access platform. PubMed includes all journals in MEDLINE (which is a selective database) AND those in PubMedCentral, which includes almost all OA journals in the life sciences (a notable exception being OMICS journals), and therefore is not selective at all. The current journal is in PubMed because as an OA journal it isin PMC, it is not in any of the more discerning databases to which PubMed is the access platform. In short, this journal misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect back to AME Publishing Company. It is probably good for people looking into this journal that we have something about it which a web search will return, but we have nothing really to say about it other than who publishes it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There's an undeclared COI here (and if the article creator edited as part of his job, undisclosed paid editing, too): the article creator (who is editing under his own name) works for the same institute as the editor-in-chief of the journal. I don't suspect anything nefarious here, just being unfamiliar with WPs rules on COI/PAID, but thought it was worth mentioning. I have warned the editor on his talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The editor-in-chief, according to the CV in UNSW website and in this wiki article, was Associate Professor Ralph Mobbs, while the article creator, was Timanchoy. I don't object the accusation of Timanchoy is a paid editor, but it seem Timanchoy (may be actually spells as Timan Choy? Tim An Choy? ) is not equal to Ralph Mobbs by common sense on spelling. That user created parallel draft under draft title Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery (JSS) and then it was moved to Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery, as well as turn this article from redirect. The user also created NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group, which Dr. Mobbs is a director of NeuroSpineClinic. It could only suggested that someone is being paid to promote the journal and the clinic/research group, but not enough information for Dr.Mobbs using alias to create wiki articles himself. Matthew hk (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Matthew hk - I don't think that Randykitty was insinuating that Mobbs was using an alias. If you go to the page on the Clinic's website (found here), you can see that there is a research assistant by the name of Wen Jie Choy, also known an Timan Choy. Since he works for the organization, there is definitely COI, and one might argue defact paid editing, since he is paid to work for the group. Onel5969 TT me 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Then it isn't the same thing of the edit-in-chief wrote the wiki article himself, but the wiki article creator had oddly the same name with Dr. Mobbs' co-worker/employee. As well as "institute" is ambiguous, UNSW or Prince of Wales School? So it end up is the clinic. Matthew hk (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Matthew hk, you're misreading my comment. I did not say that the EIC wrote this article under another name. What I said was that the editor who wrote the article works at the same institution as the EIC, as Onel5969 explained. --Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete then restore redirect and lock it down. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Dear All, I wish to clarify my position. I was a student of both A/Prof Ralph Mobbs and NSURG. Although I am a research Coordinator, I was not paid by NSURG to do so. It is voluntary work. The reason of writing this both articles up is because I have learnt a lot and benefited a lot from NSURG which I think it deserves a mention in Wikipedia. Also, NSURG is a non-profit organisation, hence, there is no money flow within. In regards to the Journal of Spine Surgery, yes I admit the journal is new. Hence there is limited indexing and still currently lacks an impact factor. However, given that it has been around for many years, I was told by the editor-in-chief (A/Prof Mobbs) that these are currently in application progress and JSS will soon receive more indexing and an impact factor. This journal is a peer-reviewed journal and nothing dodgy is going behind the scenes. I sincerely hope my explanation clarifies all confusions. Timanchoy 11:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It still WP:COI. Matthew hk (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Gatecoin

Gatecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Previously PRODed by David Gerard, removed by IP editor. No sources besides routine coverage on cryptocurrency price movements and the company's closure. Alpha3031 (tc) 10:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I cab show my Gatecoin account to prove the information is 100% accurate, the only people wanting this removed are the corrupt people who ran Gatecoin and don't want the world knowing the truth about them. But rest assured everyone will know Aurelien, David and the rest if their names, we'll make sure of that so they do do such a thing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.246.94.248 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The thing you have to do if you want it to stay is to find actually mainstream WP:RSes that cover it - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    @91.246.94.248: Look, we understand if you think something needs to be known by people, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Contact news agencies or start a blog if you need to, but Wikipedia doesn't accept journalism, no matter how important it is to get word out there. Heck, there are even other wikis that do not have our strict notability policies. Once it is covered significantly by reliable sources, then a wikipedia article will probably be accepted. The notability criteria for organizations are especially strict and "covering it would be good" isn't really a strong argument. Alpha3031 (tc) 13:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and my PROD - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. Sourcing is WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Manjinder Singh

Manjinder Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match. Only appeared at U19 level. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Violence of Gender

The Violence of Gender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

a short exhibition which probably has no enduring historical significance, how can it be possible to create an article for a single museum exhibition like this, otherwise all museums should by far have a long lists of articles of their exhibitions and talks. 淺藍雪 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: - Some background on the article: It was created as part of the Asia Art Archive Women in Art Edit-a-thon in Hong Kong, in which new users are asked to write about female artists and art-related articles. A participant, who was a brand new user, wished to create an article on the exhibit. I decided she could do it after she found one local news article (in Chinese) from The Stand News [zh] (立場新聞) and one from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), which would satisfy WP:GNG. As a volunteer at the event I'm aware several articles on other art exhibitions had been created as part of these events. I am interested in knowing whether there is notability criteria specific to art exhibitions (other than GNG), but if not I would use GNG as the guidepost.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Answering my own question I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_Art/Notability#Notability_of_events. I'll quote it from here:
"
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted."
Since Hong Kong is an SAR, it is de facto treated as a small country for the purposes of "national" reporting, so I would count the SCMP as "national" in this regard. The issue is whether this event will exceed the "news cycle" factor.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
"Notability is not temporary", and nothing could convince me that this is not a temporary event, and I really doubt a report from the SCMP would make it non-temporary and different from other normal museum events. It may have notability, but a very short one. I would say it is better to wait for some experts on articles about events to judge.--淺藍雪 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that the SCMP article is a review by Rachel Cheung (SCMP culture reporter) that goes in detail about the exhibit's themes and the reviewer's opinion of the works, not merely a news announcement that the exhibit's happening. A review of the exhibit would make the case of notability much stronger. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I still do not think a review is enough to make the event non-temporary, and "the SCMP is a national media" does not make sense to me either.--淺藍雪 20:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: "the SCMP is a national media" - The SCMP is treated as a newspaper of record of Hong Kong (essentially one of the most important newspapers). Secondly, while Hong Kong is under Chinese sovereignty, it maintains its own borders and customs, autonomous government, currency, etc., and therefore is treated similarly to a small country. This makes the SCMP a "national" publication of Hong Kong. The guidelines on events say "national" coverage has more weight than strictly "local". WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I interpret WP:NTEMP as saying that once notability is established, it is permanent. The temporary nature of the subject is irrelevant: The Armory Show is notable, even though it only lasted 26 days. In retrospect that exhibit was very significant. But we're not here to decide if The Violence of Gender is historically significant (it's too early to tell) but if there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. Vexations (talk)
There are two independent published sources that make commentary on the subject: SCMP review and The Stand News (in Chinese) - you can google translate to see what this one says, roughly WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Three, I think. I added a review by Katherine Volk. Vexations (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! The publisher is CoBo Social International Co., Limited and the author of the review is a freelance journalist. I think I can say Keep for this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the sources are not adequate to establish notability over time. The Armory show, mentioned above, is notable because it has occurred over time and been very widely reviewed. This is a single exhibition with three reviews. If we say that's enough, then we could apply the same criteria to tens of thousands of shows a year. Additionally the only thing the article tells me is that it happened ona certain date, a list of artists participated, and then it goes on to paraphrase the SCMP. We aren't a directory of things that happened, nor are we a news source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The notability standard for books, for example, is at least two independent secondary sources giving commentary on the subject. The SCMP gives an analysis and commentary, and articles are supposed to paraphrase that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not persuaded that short exhibitions are inherently non-notable. WP:NEVENTS seems to suggest the topic might or might not be notable but, since this guideline claims to be interpreting pre-existing guidelines I'll refer to WP:N where the guidance indicates the topic may be presumed to merit an article. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Taiwan related deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/China&oldid=888608291"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/China
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA