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

Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense

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

I'm not sure if this article would stay within draftspace if I moved it there, given that the creator just moved it all over the place. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung

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

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding IS ∩ RS ∩ SIGCOV at this 2016 article, this 2016 article, and this 2023 article; IS RS discussion of his work without SIGCOV at this 2009 article and this 2019 article; and an RS SIGCOV 2012 interview which I'd consider to be IS as well even though interviews are sometimes borderline.
Fails NPROF for sure, but looks like he meets NAUTHOR (or maybe it's ANYBIO or GNG; notability guidelines confuse me). The article is a bit curriculis vitae (which is probably the wrong declension, but "CV" tends to mean "copyvio" here so expanding); this can be fixed. Not super convinced by COI hypothesis: this article is indeed the first major contribution by Singering88, but a. creating it as their userpage is a fair and common rookie mistake; and b. the subject was born 1939, lived in and was educated in Taiwan, then emigrated to the US— at no point in this chain would it be intuitive that a COI editor would choose to render the subject's native name in 簡體字 (which it has been since the initial recension).
I could see a case here for COATRACK, since a fair portion of the prose actually deals with the subject's research into the Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan. But I am seeing notability here, so landing at improve and keep. Folly Mox (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoc similat curriculum vitae, perhaps? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No GS profile but there seems to be substantial citations, top 410, 305, 265, 226, 169 and further ~five >100 citns, which makes a case for meeting PROF by citations for the thyroid hormone work. Seven mainstream published books are also likely to have generated enough reviews to meet AUTHOR. The article is probably readily salvageable simply by deleting all the unrelated material. If there was COI originally, the article was submitted to AfC and accepted by DGG, so that's not a reason for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gar (music)

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

It is written as an original research, fails WP:ATD and Fails WP:SIGCOV Jinnllee90 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, Buddhism, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a WP:BEFORE was not done. Here is a book review of an entire book dedicated to this genre of music and dance in Tibet. There is also WP:SIGCOV in Jizeng, Mao (2001). "The Traditional Music of Tibet". In Robert C. Provine; Yosihiko Tokumaru; J. Lawrence Witzleben (eds.). The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music: East Asia: China, Japan, and Korea. Vol. Section IV: Music of China's National Minorities. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1201/9781315086507. ISBN 9781315086507. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lu (music)

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

It is written as an original investigation, Fails WP:SIGCOV. Jinnllee90 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really see how a one-sentence stub article with a book reference falls under the description in the nomination above? Anyway, a Google Books search shows other summaries of this music, such as in Rachel Pang 's recent "Singer of the land of snows", where Lu can be seen described as "deeply rooted in the popular, oral and folk traditions of Tibet". AllyD (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: A similar summary exists in Music of Tibet#History, but without a reference. I think that can provide a WP:ATD target. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've boldly performed the merge into Music of Tibet § History after also finding a better source. I'm landing on delete instead of redirect for a few reasons:
- The disambiguator (music) here is not very helpful, and fails PRECISE.
- It's not clear whether "lu", on its own, is a full transliteration of the Tibetan word for this topic. I'm not familiar with Tibetan, but I know its phonology contrasts two vowel lengths and two or more vowel tones, none of which are indicated anywhere here, nor is a native term provided to assist searching for additional information.
- Subsidiary to this, the Chinese terms for the subject (spelt including the loangraph 魯) never refer to the subject using only that word, which is ambiguous outside the context of historical geography. (This term is also not provided in the article, and it took me probably twenty minutes to narrow down keyword searches sufficiently to find a Chinese source on the topic.)
- No good redirect target unless we want to break out a separate subheading in Music of Tibet specifically for folk music. That article is currently partitioned entirely differently: § History is mostly about sacred music, with a single paragraph touching on secular folk forms; § Popular and modern seems inapplicable. A subparagraph anchor to the single sentence on "lu" folk music would be a disappointing clickthrough.
- Most of the inlinks are from template transclusions, so cleanup should be easy. I did retain the link at Music of Tibet § History just in case.
If someone wants to expand on the subject we could revisit a potential redirect or recreation. AllyD seems to have found sources, and the source I added has good further information, although only the first half of the article is visible without registration.
Noting I also don't understand / agree with the nomination rationale. Folly Mox (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China-Myanmar community with a shared future

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

Does not appear to have WP:SUSTAINED notability warranting an artcle. Amigao (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, China, and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to China–Myanmar relations as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to China–Myanmar relations.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

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

This list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000+ personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and China. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list cannot stay the way it is. The scope given by its title is too broad and doesn't match the far more limited scope of its content. If it did, it would basically duplicate List of generals of China. Either we should move to List of current Chinese military leaders or something similar, or we should merge to List of generals of China. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The similar lists at Category:Lists of active duty military personnel all have a more limited scope than this one. If this list is kept in some form, it should probably be split by rank and/or branch. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wuzhen Initiative

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

Likely violates WP:NPOV. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildfireupdateman (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and China. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to World Internet Conference#Summits#2nd World Internet Conference per WP:ATD. On its own not independently notable, but this was the end product of the 2nd World Internet Conference so it is reasonably covered there. The secondary sources that are still accessible can be used to verify content, and whoever does the merge can remove any overly promotional content in order to comply with WP:NPOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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~~ Redirect 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]
Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elf Bar, see Reuters. IgelRM (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that there Elf Bar article for some reason. Agree this makes sense as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing that appears notability or encyclopedic content, is not because something exists that is relevant to an article. Svartner (talk) 04:33, 21 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references appear to be about topics separate from the subject, as stated above. I was unable to find additional references. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. AI in medicine is the next big thing. But I can’t see how or why he’s notable. We need much more about him. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong related deletions

Etty Lau Farrell

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, article is a biography of a person whose biggest claim to fame is being married to a notable musician. Sources presented are articles on Perry Farrell and Jane's Addiction (more than a few of which don't even mention Etty at all), primary interviews, passing mentions, etc. The sources with the most dedicated coverage to her here are a Forbes contributor article and a Wordpress blog (neither of which are in any way acceptable for BLP articles, see WP:FORBESCON and WP:WORDPRESS), virtually none of the others establish notability. Given the WP:BLP problems at play here, including numerous sections of unsourced content about the living subject, as well as the aforementioned WP:SIGCOV issues (which WP:BEFORE could not help alleviate, since most of the standalone coverage that a search could turn up is about her commentary on a single controversy from around the same period), this person is unworthy of an article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perry Farrell#personal life per WP:ATD. The only sourcing I could find were all WP:TABLOID articles.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, Television, Hong Kong, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perry Farrell#personal life. I am very familiar with Jane's Addiction so I know this story. Etty Lau does have some of her own accomplishments in dance and music, but usually these are only mentioned briefly in lists of credits for the works of more famous collaborators. She occasionally makes the news for involvement in her husband's management but it tends to be in the form of celebrity gossip (e.g. [1], [2]). She's closer to her own notability than it might appear at first glance, but there is not enough reliable and independent coverage to sustain an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Coetzee

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, South Africa, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Probably not the Martin Coetzee at University of Pretoria. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasim Murtaza

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. There would appear to be a lot of these very routine players with articles! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:20, 21 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references appear to be about topics separate from the subject, as stated above. I was unable to find additional references. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. AI in medicine is the next big thing. But I can’t see how or why he’s notable. We need much more about him. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 23 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]
Keep. Along with the news coverage found by Cunard, a journal article, and now a book I think we have safely arrived at WP:SIGCOV. Diversity of sources is a good indication of notability, and for me this is what has pushed it passed the line into the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My final vote is keep. WP:SIGCOV was proven and supported. No need for deletion. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may only !vote once. Please strike one of yours or turn it into a comment. Star Mississippi 15:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting for evaluation of the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources that is not just routine coverage to establish notability. Marcocanol (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions