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

Lost Mary

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

It has been in the NPP for a very long time. Unable to find sufficient significant coverage, fails WP:ORG. - The9Man ^Talk 11:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - cursory source for sources - Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Law360, Financial Times, Independent, The Times, The Guardian, Birmingham Mail, The Grocer. Bristol Post. New York Times, TheJournal.ie, Wired starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I ended up with were just mentions. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to improve the article.- The9Man ^Talk 12:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The9Man, thank you. I created the Lost Mary article because the brand is ubiquitous in the UK. The area behind the till in every corner shop is covered in Lost Mary products. I was looking for information and couldn't believe there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia but I can contribute a photograph of an electronic cigarettes display showing the Lost Mary products, if this helps. Jfclemay (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfclemay, Thank you for your contribution! Wikipedia articles require coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You can read the guidelines here - WP:ORGCRIT. If you have sources such as news articles, industry publications, or other reputable coverage about the brand, adding those could strengthen the article. Additionally, photographs can be valuable, just be sure that any images you upload are your own work or that you have the proper permissions.

@Thanks again for your efforts! - The9Man ^Talk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources above are all dicdefs for 'passing mention' as far as Lost Mary is concerned, listed in each as one of a number of 'brands of concern' and introduced typically with 'such as...' - Elf Bar might make the grade on coverage, albeit for all the wrong reasons. But Lost Mary is one of a large number of brands the company makes and does not merit an article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsui Teh-li

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

Recipient of a scouting award. Appears to fail WP:GNG. I was unable to find any other sources in a Google news search. Perhaps there are some Chinese-language sources available. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Scouting, and China. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award as they don't meet WP:BIO but are listed their and the fact they received one is supported by an RS. That source is, however, WP:PRIMARY from the offical scouts website and per BIO can't count towards notability, while also not meeting WP:SIGCOV cause it's literally a list with no elaboration - it says his name + the year (btw it's dead now, check internet archive from 2022). Additionally, thee's nothing else relating to him found in English searches. I conducted Chinese searches on both Baidu (mainland China search engine because it says "Scouts of China") - which returned a Baidu Baike article (Chinese Wikipedia but run by Baidu) - it's UGI and a stub with only a single non-WP:SIGCOV WP:PRIMARY ref. There's also people who happened to have the same name, like a victim of a Korean homicide. On Google (but in Chinese, because it says "This Taiwan-related article..." at the bottom), there's only the same Baidu Baike hit, DouYin Baike (basically the same as Baidu Baike - all UGI), as well as non-WP:SIGCOV things like his name (without elaboration) in a list of past principles of a high school, and his name in a list (without elaboration) of past government officials. He also appears to have written a book, but he is no-where near meeting WP:NAUTHOR for that book. Molecular Pilot 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award: This information is already contained in List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award Demt1298 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wits of the Brats

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

Not independently sourced. A WP:BEFORE search failed. I unilaterally moved this to draftspace once already. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As someone already mentioned, it meet the WP:NFILM since it was the first and the only Fu Sheng's directorial roles on films and among the last films he acted on before his death and I made this article initially as a tribute to him. If there's a problem with the plot then you can watch it by yourself on Dailymotion https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ibl4f if you can understand mandarin. There are other older hong kong films article with some dated as early as 2007 that were outrageously less sourced and arguably less notable than this article, and I don't see editor having problem with those article and I think now this article have enough proper source in the latest edit at the time of this reply.
Dauzlee (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was any problem with the plot. But thanks. Mushy Yank (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in general we don't use non-expert reviews to establish notability. So maybe a good part of the reviews ~~you've~~ Nicholas0 recently added won't count, I'm afraid. Mushy Yank (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unsourced, entirely unverifiable. Search just throws up Amazon Prime listings and the like. Draft was the right move, now this is the right move. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NFILM as the only director effort of Alexander Fu Sheng. A redirect (various targets come to mind: lists of films, directors, producers..) should have been considered anyway. So, absolutely opposed to deletion. Pinging @Prince of Erebor: to ask them if they can locate sources to add to the ones I've already added (various SPS expert reviews exist but I did not add them). Mushy Yank (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found several reviews and the film is referenced on many websites. It is particularly notable because of the directors involved. Once there is a Wikipedia page for it, even more people will realize that it exists and review it. Then even more reviews can be added. --Nicholas0 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry but you can only !vote once. Would you please unbold one of your 2 keeps, please? Thanks.~~Mushy Yank (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only voted once, though. Are you confusing me with someone else? Nicholas0 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologise! Silly me. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Hong Kong. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Strong Keep: This is a 1984 film, and the Chinese titles were all misspelled, which probably explains why an internet search yielded no results. I found two sources from Lianhe Wanbao[1][2], two from Shin Min Daily News[3][4], four from Kung Sheung Daily News[5][6][7][8], and one from Wah Kiu Yat Po[9], and have added all of them to the article (+significantly expanded it). GNG is clearly fulfilled at this point. @I dream of horses and Alexandermcnabb: Please review the newly located sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Film has coverage here, here and here and this is just from Singapore. There's definitely far more in offline sources from Hong Kong. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, these are tiny pieces - snippets - of coverage in local foreign language print media. If they're more than listings or passing mentions, it certainly doesn't seem so. I think this is really reaching - is the film truly notable by WP English standards? Internationally notable? From this, I'm still calling it 'no'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: I beg to differ with your source assessment. 1. Non-English sources are allowed on WP and contribute to notability in the same way as English sources. Please see WP:NONENG. 2. All the sources I added, except for source 14, are full-length articles entirely covering the film. I have actually come across at least 5 other articles with less significant coverage while searching for sources, and I have already screened them out. I am pretty sure that if I were truly adding sources with merely passing mentions, at least double that number could be included. With 8 strong sources that provide SIGCOV, GNG is undoubtedly fulfilled. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely on WP:NONENG - but I can only see very, very short print snippets in Chinese/Mandarin being brought up here. Perhaps someone might like to step up to: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote."... Because absent that, these sources are a) very short and b) being in print and not English, effectively non-verifiable - WP:PROOF Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Alexandermcnabb, the two reasons you listed are contradictory. As I mentioned, 8 of the 9 sources I cited are full-length articles, averaging hundreds of words each. It is exceedingly demanding for me to translate all of them. If you expect long, detailed articles with SIGCOV on the subject, then anticipating a full-length translation of hundreds or thousands of words in the footnote is unrealistic. Also, I have linked all of the articles, and they are digitally accessible, so being in print is not a concern. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources that have been added have translated titles, and they seem entirely appropriate as references. For example, "After Eleven Years in Film and Twenty-Seven Films, the Early Departed Alexander Fu Sheng’s Directorial Debut Wits of the Brats was also His Unfinished Final Work" is obviously the start of a full article, not a brief mention. Alexandermcnabb's argument that "being in print and not English" means that the sources are "effectively non-verifiable" is a clear violation of WP:NONENG. It may be "effectively non-verifiable" to you at a glance, but there are people in the world who can read Chinese/Mandarin. Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the West Chamber

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

Neither the English language article nor its Chinese equivalent have in depth coverage in independent sources. Sources may exist in Chinese but on current showing this title isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and China. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a well-known online comic in China, the source is sufficient. Wtf35861887 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I added some sources and updated the content. Wtf35861887 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but those don’t help. They are just more sites selling or distributing the title. Please see WP:BOOKCRIT. To show notability we need independent sources discussing the work in depth. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. According to the source, 28,029 people rated this webcomic, giving it a score of 9.9. Another large Chinese rating website gave it a score of 9.6. For a recently completed short-to-medium BL themed online comic, this is no small feat.

According to the source link, 5.55 billion people have read this online comic with a niche theme. If this is not well-known, then what does it mean to be "well-known".

Of course, this comic cannot be as famous as a classic work like Shakespeare. Wtf35861887 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I recommend not deleting it, but keeping it and waiting for people to improve this entry. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we have articles about other webcomics that are discussed in independent sources. Has this one been discussed in independent sources? That’s what is missing. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t ACGx and Douban count? ACGx is a company that studies the ACG market and Douban is a rating website where users give voluntary ratings. They will not gain any revenue or benefit in any way. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the content of ACGx’s news articles, ACGx is researching modern Chinese comics, not promoting or touting Beauty and the West Chamber. More than half of the entire article mainly talks about Chinese opera rather than introducing Beauty and the West Chamber. ACGx simply stated that Beauty and the West Chamber is one of the excellent examples of the combination of traditional culture in new entertainment media, and also mentioned Beauty and the West Chamber has some advantages in subject selection. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACGx talks about the use of traditional culture in modern entertainment media, and by the way studies some manifestations of traditional culture in Beauty and the West Chamber, while many other news columns simply introduce Beauty and the West Chambe or promote Beauty and the West Chambe. These differences It can be easily seen from the text and the writer.

To be sure, there is no news column for promotion and praise in the source link.

I don’t think this article reaches the level that needs to be deleted. It needs improvements and updated content, but it's not worth deleting. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACGx mentioned in the article that Beauty and the West Chambe had 1.35 billion people watching it when it was serialized for 69 episodes. Isn’t this enough to prove that Beauty and the West Chambe is an online comic with some popularity? This popularity is obviously One of the reasons why Beauty and the West Chambe caught the attention of ACGx.

According to Tencent Animation and Comics, a large comics reading platform, Beauty and the West Chamber's score has increased from 9.0 two or three years ago to 9.9 now, which is almost a perfect score. Beauty and the West Chamber's popularity is obviously on the rise.

Why are you in a hurry to delete the entry? This comic has just been completed...

There is still a lot of information that has not been put here, such as the author's thoughts, readers' discussions, and comments.

This entry is worth keeping. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another new media company specializing in the ACG market, 3wyu, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled? Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth.

Apparently there are a number of independent sources talking about this. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3wyu, another new media company specializing in the ACG market, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled "Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liangyou Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Previous WP:PROD concerns still not addressed after many years. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and China. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) per nom. There’s no English language coverage of this company. If you find anything, please ping us. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian (talk · contribs), I've found Chinese-language sources that I've posted below. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Luo, Yuyue 罗嵛月 (2015-04-15). "良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼" [Liangyou's edible oil was once the leader in Shanghai, but now it has lost to Golden Dragon Fish]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via China Business Network.
  This article has a lot of negative coverage about Liangyou's business failures and also covers the company's history. The article notes: "据《第一财经日报》记者多方了解，这家2011年总资产已达154亿元、全年销售收入165亿元的老牌国企，这几年却不尽如人意。食用油是良友的主营业务之一，良友集团原领导曾有“海狮兴，则良友兴”的论断，一位资深业内人士如此告诉本报记者。现实非常残酷，上海作为良友的总部，占尽“主场”便利，良友不仅输给了跨国粮油品牌金龙鱼，在央企品牌福临门和台湾品牌多力冲击下，良友也应对乏力，市场份额下滑。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the reporter of China Business News, this old state-owned enterprise, which had total assets of 15.4 billion yuan in 2011 and annual sales revenue of 16.5 billion yuan, has not been satisfactory in recent years. Edible oil is one of Liangyou's main businesses. The former leader of Liangyou Group once said that "if Sea Lion prospers, Liangyou will prosper", a senior industry insider told our reporter. The reality is very cruel. As the headquarters of Liangyou, Shanghai has the convenience of "home court". Liangyou not only lost to the multinational grain and oil brand Golden Dragon Fish, but also failed to cope with the impact of the central enterprise brand Fortune and the Taiwanese brand Duoli, and its market share declined."
  The article notes: "市场人士分析，良友食用油售价低，是因为作为国企，担负了上海市平抑物价的责任，企业品牌投入资金相对较少。这导致良友在市场竞争中非常不利。"
  From Google Translate: "Market analysts analyzed that the low price of Liangyou cooking oil is because, as a state-owned enterprise, it bears the responsibility of stabilizing prices in Shanghai, and the company's brand investment is relatively small. This puts Liangyou at a great disadvantage in market competition."
2. "中国经济 '99" [China Economy '99]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). 1999. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "公司建于 1998 年 10 月,目前已开业 100 家“良友便利”连锁店。未来发展目标是三年内建成 300 家连锁便利店。上海良友集团是根据国务院《关于进一步深化粮食流通体制改革的决定》精神,经中共上海市委、市人民政府批准,以国有骨干粮食企业为主体,于 1998 年 8 月 8日成立。上海良友(集团)有限公司是上海良友集团的核心企业,注册资金 17 亿元人民币。主要经营:粮油批发、加工,资产经营,实业投资,房地产开发经营及物业管理,科研开发,咨询服务,国内贸易等。下辖 7 个全资子公司, 2 个控股子公司。上海良友集团承担上海粮食市场流通主渠道任务。"
  From Google Translate: "The company was established in October 1998 and currently has 100 "Liangyou Convenience" chain stores in operation. The future development goal is to build 300 chain convenience stores within three years. Shanghai Liangyou Group was established on August 8, 1998, based on the spirit of the State Council's "Decision on Further Deepening the Reform of the Grain Circulation System", approved by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Municipal People's Government, with state-owned backbone grain enterprises as the main body. Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. is the core enterprise of Shanghai Liangyou Group with a registered capital of RMB 1.7 billion. Main business: grain and oil wholesale, processing, asset management, industrial investment, real estate development and operation and property management, scientific research and development, consulting services, domestic trade, etc. It has 7 wholly-owned subsidiaries and 2 holding subsidiaries. Shanghai Liangyou Group undertakes the main channel task of Shanghai grain market circulation."
3. Li, Jianzhi 李建致 (2019). "沐浴春风成长壮大——上海良友集团二十年之发展认领" [Growing Strong in the Spring Breeze: The 20-Year Development of Shanghai Liangyou Group]. 商业企业 [Commercial Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 6. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "1998年,上海良友(集团)有限公司成立,从此粮油企业和职工,真正步人市场竞争的大海;2000年,改革、调整和转型,良友企业焕发出新的生机;2015年,联合重组,打造实力,良友集团风华正茂,昂首阔步。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1998, Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. was established. Since then, grain and oil enterprises and employees have truly stepped into the sea of market competition; in 2000, reform, adjustment and transformation, Liangyou Enterprises have regained new vitality; in 2015, joint reorganization and strength building, Liangyou Group is in its prime and strides forward."
4. Liu, Lijing 刘丽靓 (2015-05-08). "光明食品集团与上海良友集团联合重组" [Bright Food Group and Shanghai Liangyou Group Jointly Restructured]. China Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "上海良友集团是上海从事粮食经营的国有企业集团，承担着政府委托或指定的职能，为保障上海粮食安全和供给稳定服务。其经营领域涵盖粮油加工、仓储物流、便利连锁、粮油贸易、进出口业务、实业投资等。集团下属20家全资、控股子公司和13家参股公司，以及国家级粮油制品检验检测中心和上海市级集团技术中心。经过多年发展，旗下拥有海狮、乐惠、雪雀（福新）、味都、三添、友益等上海市著名商标和上海名牌产品，主要粮油产品上海市场占有率名列前茅。"
  From Google Translate: "Shanghai Liangyou Group is a state-owned enterprise group engaged in grain business in Shanghai. It undertakes the functions entrusted or designated by the government to serve the guarantee of Shanghai's grain security and stable supply. Its business areas cover grain and oil processing, warehousing and logistics, convenience chain, grain and oil trade, import and export business, industrial investment, etc. The group has 20 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries and 13 joint-stock companies, as well as a national grain and oil product inspection and testing center and a Shanghai-level group technology center. After years of development, it owns Shanghai's famous trademarks and Shanghai famous brand products such as Sea Lion, Lehui, Snow Bird (Fuxin), Weidu, Santian, and Youyi. The market share of its main grain and oil products in Shanghai ranks among the top."
5. "日本九州农协与上海签订2000吨日本米出口协议" [The Kyushu Agricultural Cooperative in Japan has signed an export agreement for 2,000 tons of Japanese rice with Shanghai]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2007-12-04.
  The article notes: "报道称，承销这批大米的是在中国具有大米专卖权的“良友集团”旗下的“上海良友公司”。"
  From Google Translate: "The report states that the underwriter of this batch of rice is "Shanghai Liangyou Company," which is under the "Liangyou Group," a company that has exclusive rights to sell rice in China."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shanghai Liangyou Group (simplified Chinese: 上海良友集团有限公司; traditional Chinese: 上海良友集團有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources found by Cunard added to the article, then I’m going along with a Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong related deletions

Wits of the Brats

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

Not independently sourced. A WP:BEFORE search failed. I unilaterally moved this to draftspace once already. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As someone already mentioned, it meet the WP:NFILM since it was the first and the only Fu Sheng's directorial roles on films and among the last films he acted on before his death and I made this article initially as a tribute to him. If there's a problem with the plot then you can watch it by yourself on Dailymotion https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ibl4f if you can understand mandarin. There are other older hong kong films article with some dated as early as 2007 that were outrageously less sourced and arguably less notable than this article, and I don't see editor having problem with those article and I think now this article have enough proper source in the latest edit at the time of this reply.
Dauzlee (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was any problem with the plot. But thanks. Mushy Yank (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in general we don't use non-expert reviews to establish notability. So maybe a good part of the reviews ~~you've~~ Nicholas0 recently added won't count, I'm afraid. Mushy Yank (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unsourced, entirely unverifiable. Search just throws up Amazon Prime listings and the like. Draft was the right move, now this is the right move. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NFILM as the only director effort of Alexander Fu Sheng. A redirect (various targets come to mind: lists of films, directors, producers..) should have been considered anyway. So, absolutely opposed to deletion. Pinging @Prince of Erebor: to ask them if they can locate sources to add to the ones I've already added (various SPS expert reviews exist but I did not add them). Mushy Yank (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found several reviews and the film is referenced on many websites. It is particularly notable because of the directors involved. Once there is a Wikipedia page for it, even more people will realize that it exists and review it. Then even more reviews can be added. --Nicholas0 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry but you can only !vote once. Would you please unbold one of your 2 keeps, please? Thanks.~~Mushy Yank (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only voted once, though. Are you confusing me with someone else? Nicholas0 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologise! Silly me. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Hong Kong. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Strong Keep: This is a 1984 film, and the Chinese titles were all misspelled, which probably explains why an internet search yielded no results. I found two sources from Lianhe Wanbao[10][11], two from Shin Min Daily News[12][13], four from Kung Sheung Daily News[14][15][16][17], and one from Wah Kiu Yat Po[18], and have added all of them to the article (+significantly expanded it). GNG is clearly fulfilled at this point. @I dream of horses and Alexandermcnabb: Please review the newly located sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Film has coverage here, here and here and this is just from Singapore. There's definitely far more in offline sources from Hong Kong. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, these are tiny pieces - snippets - of coverage in local foreign language print media. If they're more than listings or passing mentions, it certainly doesn't seem so. I think this is really reaching - is the film truly notable by WP English standards? Internationally notable? From this, I'm still calling it 'no'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: I beg to differ with your source assessment. 1. Non-English sources are allowed on WP and contribute to notability in the same way as English sources. Please see WP:NONENG. 2. All the sources I added, except for source 14, are full-length articles entirely covering the film. I have actually come across at least 5 other articles with less significant coverage while searching for sources, and I have already screened them out. I am pretty sure that if I were truly adding sources with merely passing mentions, at least double that number could be included. With 8 strong sources that provide SIGCOV, GNG is undoubtedly fulfilled. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely on WP:NONENG - but I can only see very, very short print snippets in Chinese/Mandarin being brought up here. Perhaps someone might like to step up to: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote."... Because absent that, these sources are a) very short and b) being in print and not English, effectively non-verifiable - WP:PROOF Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Alexandermcnabb, the two reasons you listed are contradictory. As I mentioned, 8 of the 9 sources I cited are full-length articles, averaging hundreds of words each. It is exceedingly demanding for me to translate all of them. If you expect long, detailed articles with SIGCOV on the subject, then anticipating a full-length translation of hundreds or thousands of words in the footnote is unrealistic. Also, I have linked all of the articles, and they are digitally accessible, so being in print is not a concern. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources that have been added have translated titles, and they seem entirely appropriate as references. For example, "After Eleven Years in Film and Twenty-Seven Films, the Early Departed Alexander Fu Sheng’s Directorial Debut Wits of the Brats was also His Unfinished Final Work" is obviously the start of a full article, not a brief mention. Alexandermcnabb's argument that "being in print and not English" means that the sources are "effectively non-verifiable" is a clear violation of WP:NONENG. It may be "effectively non-verifiable" to you at a glance, but there are people in the world who can read Chinese/Mandarin. Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Clearwater Bay Road

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

I proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the

type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. "清水灣道8號擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.
  The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."
  The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."
2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).
  The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"
  From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."
3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.
  The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"
  From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."
4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.
  The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."
5. "彩虹站新貴清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.
  The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"
  From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah Keep the article Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Upon extending the article by adding links to reliable secondary sources represented by notable publications such as Sing Tao Daily, Sharp Daily and Hong Kong Economic Times that provide significant, in-depth and continued coverage, Cunard (talk) proved and sustained WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Helped with WP:PRESERVE in the process. The article should be WP:SALTed in order to be protected against future nominations.

JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what salting means. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it looks like well written. The user already create many new wiki articles with reliable sources. Dasomm (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just spend Election Day working in the Knickerbocker Plaza, a building almost exactly the same size as this: 40 stories, 400 apartments. In a large city like New York or Hong Kong, there are literally hundreds of such buildings. There is always going to be excited local coverage about a new development, often egged on by developers themselves. We are not a directory of the 156 tallest buildings in every city in the world. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are "hundreds of such buildings" with proper identity and distinctive. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be brought up as an argument of deletion in this case. The sources cited in the article sustain WP:NEXIST with a neutral point of view. And I doubt Hong Kong Economic Times is "egged" by developers. JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article which states e.g. "I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used." hardly comes across as neutral, factual reporting... Fram (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publications often paraphrase information received from sources of interest (WP:LOCAL in this case). Some of them might indeed be written on a tone inadequate for mainspace articles. However, Cunard has only selected factual information denoting technical details, parties directly implied into the construction process and economic indicators. JeyReydar97 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not seriously calling this significant, independent coverage, are we? This is WP:ROUTINE stuff, sales announcements, and a database page. -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage is not a disqualification for notability JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i still don't see a clear consensus to keep or delete (non-admin comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About as an average of a condo tower as you can get. This gets deleted 9/10 times in any other town as we've done many other times before, and some of the keeps are also forgetting outright that some of the residents don't want a Wikipedia article about their building no matter how many times the local real estate media hype it up. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the coverage found by Cunard looks a lot, it's rather WP:ROUTINE, e.g. "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch". For this reason, I don't think this is notable. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm honestly waffling between weak keep and weak delete here, as the building has been discussed in at least one English-language Hong Kong architectural book (Xue 2016), in part because it's built on top of a transit station and for being a "pencil tower." I don't really mind if this is deleted, as the articles that have been found appear to be transactional real estate articles, and I'm not sure notability is guaranteed here just because it's been in one architectural book. I think my position is that we haven't entirely demonstrated notability, but we might be a source away. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book added by Underwaterbuffalo is the one I found, but the scholarly article is just two listing in two tables. It is helpful, but it doesn't push this into a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building has been described and used as an example in at least one book and one scholarly article. I have added the references in the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions

Li Kai-jie

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

Having international caps for a country with no impact on the sport at large, is no longer a free pass with regards to notability. With a handful of caps and a very short club career, this would need substantial sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searched news articles for him and only found one article. Does not appear to have played many professional games. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]