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[edit]

Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Honan 1938[edit]

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

Identical subject and content to Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Henan 1938, but with the Wade-Giles romanization of Henan ("Honan"). Can be safely turned into a redirect. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Japan. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This is baffling. The same editor, User:Asiaticus, created the "Honan" version on 15 February 2007, and then created the "Henan" version on 2 April 2008? Did they forget they'd made one already and simply create a new version based on the same sources? There are slight discrepancies, but since the Henan version has better sourcing I favor keeping that one. Toadspike [Talk] 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since this seems to be completely identical barring the romanization spelling Claire 26 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liaoning Flying Leopards–Sichuan Blue Whales brawl[edit]

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

Neutral nom on behalf of an IP who stated: Zhanghang0704 only ever made 6 edits, all over the course of 3 days in late March 2016: the creation of this article, 4 more edits to it, and an edit to Liaoning Flying Leopards. I believe this article is a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as the brawl (which happened 5 days before this article's creation) does not appear to have sustained coverage - to say nothing of the article itself being extremely barebones despite a whopping 9 references. Star Mississippi 00:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and China. Star Mississippi 00:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS applies here with a complete lack of sustained coverage, to say nothing of the WP:NPOV issues and the fact of the article being created by a SPA. Let'srun (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOTNEWS and hardly notable. ADifferentMan (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 CBA Playoffs#Finals (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. 2016 CBA Playoffs#Finals already mentions this brawl.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let'srun (talk · contribs) and ADifferentMan (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to 2016 CBA Playoffs#Finals per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. ADifferentMan (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Penghu[edit]

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

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though the small list can still be summarised on the main Penghu article. Dympies (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I can see a clear consensus that this article has sufficient lasting coverage and passes WP:NEVENT. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833[edit]

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

Non-notable accident. No sustained continued coverage, no lasting effects have been demonstrated and no in-depth coverage generated from the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and China. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is clearly lasting coverage – simply search "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报" and you will find several articles on the recently-released report by the CAAC, like this one [1]. Keep in mind that news sourcing in China is already sparse to begin with. This coverage is far beyond what I would expect for notability. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the information from that source/the CAAC report to the article. It is source ten, in the last paragraph. Toadspike [Talk] 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument still stands. There is clearly not sustained continued coverage, news reports only appeared because the final report was released. There was practically barely any coverage whatsoever of the accident between when the accident happened and the release of the final report other than announcements by the CAAC. I can't find any lasting effects that have been generated by this accident and fining those related/involved in the accident certainly won't help develop the aviation industry. Reading the safety recommendations from a translated version of the Final Report, the recommendations don't seem to be that significant in regards to improvement in the long term. In my opinion, the accident isn't particularly noteworthy in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. My view of sustained, continued coverage seems to differ from yours. To me, having several news articles about the event over two years is a sufficiently significant period of time (sustained), and is not a burst or spike of news reports (there were several such "bursts") or an event only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion (continued).

Separately, I must re-emphasize the point that this is a country with barely any news reporting to begin with, especially of disasters and tragedies. And you can bet that there will be lasting effects, we just won't see them, since they'll be implemented behind-the-scenes by some mid-level official doing his best to enforce national policy and prevent future embarrassment. I am much less concerned with recentism here than I am with geographic bias. Toadspike [Talk] 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While geographic bias may play a factor in the amount of international news coverage, that does not mean there can't be any (excluding chinese news coverage). The article had multiple international news agencies covering this on the day of the accident (none after the accident).

Another issue regarding this article is that most if not all news coverage regarding this accident consist of primary sources with barely any secondary sources available. Most sources only covered the topic when the accident happened and when the CAAC published their announcements which certainly is in the realm of WP:NOTNEWS.

When taking a look at the sources given when typing "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报", it's clear that news coverage regarding the release of the final report only repeat what was stated by the CAAC in its final report with no real analysis.

Whilst there may be lasting effects, the recommendations given don't seem to be particularly impressive such as "cockpit tidiness". Whilst aviation safety cannot be perfect, most of these recommendations should've long been implemented such as better CRM training. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2022, 2023, and 2024 even years after it took place on 12 May 2022.
The event is notable since the seventh edition of the McGraw Hill Education book Commercial Aviation Safety noted, "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance" (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if those sources were prompted by the final report. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.
Sources published from the day of to two years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about Tibet Airlines Flight 9833:
1. Barrett, Eamon (2022-05-11). "China's Tibet Airlines flight bursts into flames after aborting takeoff and veering off runway". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "China suffered a second aircraft disaster in as many months on Thursday, when a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff. Videos posted online appears to show the front of the Airbus A319 engulfed in flames as passengers flee from the aircraft. Over 40 people were reportedly taken to hospital, with minor injuries. There have been no fatalities reported from the 119 passengers and nine crew members on-board. ... The A319 is one of Airbus’s smaller models and the plane that caught fire on Thursday was nine years old, Reuters says. An isolated incident like the “abnormality” at Chongqing airport will unlikely affect Airbus’s broader operations. Airbus’s London-based shares have yet to react to the news."
2. Qiu, Stella; Freed, Jamie (2022-05-12). Feast, Lincoln; Wong, Jacqueline; Cameron-Moore, Simon (eds.). "Chinese jet aborts takeoff, catches fire, causing minor injuries from evacuation". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "Crew members noticed that fuel oil was leaking and started evacuating passengers down slides, Mr A said. Fire soon broke out, forcing some passengers including himself to jump from the aircraft, he said, adding that he had injured his back and legs. Unverified photos on social media show both engines separated from the airframe as well as a major crack in the rear fuselage and damage to the right wing. The plane involved is a nine-year-old A319, one of the smallest versions of the A320 family."
3. "Tibet Airlines passenger jet catches fire". The Sun. Agence France-Presse. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "Images shared by Chinese state media showed flames engulfing the side of the stricken jet as terrified passengers ran from the scene. Photos of the aftermath showed scorch marks covering the nose and one wing of the jet, which had been doused in water to control the blaze. ... Flight TV9833 deviated from the runway during take-off and “the left side of the aircraft’s nose caught fire”, Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport said in a separate statement."
4. "Passenger Jet Bursts Into Flames During Takeoff in China". Bloomberg News. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2022-05-12. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "More than 40 people were taken to the hospital after a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff at China’s Chongqing Airport. The front of the Airbus SE A319 aircraft was engulfed in flames and enveloped by thick black smoke, footage posted on social media showed. Passengers carrying bags and other items were seen on the tarmac running away from the burning jet."
5. Manning, Joshua (2022-05-12). "Breaking News: Plane with 113 passengers catches fire on runway in China". EuroWeekly News. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "On Thursday, May, 12, a Tibet Airlines plane caught fire after veering off the airport runway in Chongqing, China. The plane was departing from the city of Chongqing, China, to Nyingchi, Tibet, carrying 113 passengers and nine crew members, when the crew noticed “abnormalities” and suspended take off before the plane caught fire."
6. Lawrenson, Anthony; Rodrigues, Clarence C.; Malmquist, Shem; Greaves, Matthew; Braithwaite, Graham; Cusick, Stephen K. (2023). Commercial Aviation Safety (7 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education. p. 455. ISBN 978-1-264-27870-1. Retrieved 2024-06-09 – via Google Books.
  The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. notes: "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance."
7. Su, Xuan 苏璇 (2023-08-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空客机偏出跑道事故调查进展：原因已查明将公布报告" [Investigation progress of the Tibet Airlines passenger plane runway deviation accident: the cause has been found out and the report will be released] (in Chinese). China Central Television. China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "2022年5月12日，西藏航空有限公司空客A319-115型客机(注册号B-6425)执行TV9833重庆至林芝国内定期客运航班，在重庆江北机场03号跑道起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。机上旅客113人、机组9人全部安全撤离，飞机及机场地面设施不同程度受损。"
  From Google Translate: "On 12 May 2022, Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. Airbus A319-115 passenger aircraft (registration number B-6425) carried out TV9833 Chongqing to Linzhi domestic scheduled passenger flight, and deviated from the runway during the takeoff runway 03 of Chongqing Jiangbei Airport. All 113 passengers and 9 crew members on board were safely evacuated, and the aircraft and airport ground facilities were damaged to varying degrees."
8. Qiu, Xiaoya 邱小雅 (2023-08-05). Yu, Wenxin 余文欣 (ed.). "民航西南局：西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故原因已查明" [Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China: The cause of the Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviating from the runway has been found out]. Chongqing Hualong [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "据悉，2022年5月12日8时09分，西藏航空TV9833航班（重庆至林芝）在重庆江北国际机场起飞时偏出跑道，航空器机头左侧起火。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that at 8:09 on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight (Chongqing to Linzhi) deviated from the runway when taking off at Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport, and the left side of the aircraft nose caught fire."
9. Wei, Juanming 韦娟明 (2023-08-05). Zhang, Yali 张亚莉 (ed.). "藏航空客客机偏出跑道事故原因已查明！曾致36人擦伤扭伤" [The cause of the Tibetan Airlines passenger plane deviating from the runway has been found! 36 people were injured and sprained]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "国内三大航一名飞行员告诉南都记者，客机起飞前机长会做绕机检查，遇到需要中断起飞的情况“很罕见”。他同时指出，如果飞机带着起落架或轮子故障起飞，“回头再落地会更麻烦，损伤会更严重”。事发当日下午，西藏航空有限公司重庆营业部告诉南都记者，飞机上的轻伤旅客安排在医院治疗，大部分乘客则安排到酒店住宿，会保障他们后续的出行安排，事故原因正在调查中。"
  From Google Translate: "A pilot from one of the three major domestic airlines told Nandu reporters that the captain would do a circumnavigation inspection before the passenger plane took off, and it was "very rare" to encounter a situation where the takeoff needed to be aborted. He also pointed out that if the plane took off with a landing gear or wheel failure, "it would be more troublesome to turn around and land again, and the damage would be more serious." On the afternoon of the incident, the Chongqing Sales Department of Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. told Nandu reporters that the slightly injured passengers on the plane were arranged for treatment in the hospital, and most of the passengers were arranged to stay in hotels, and their subsequent travel arrangements would be guaranteed. The cause of the accident is under investigation.
10. Wang, Xin 王鑫 (2024-01-04). "律师申请公开西藏航空事故调查报告遇阻后起诉，一审法院驳回诉请" [The lawyer filed a lawsuit after encountering obstacles in applying for the disclosure of the Tibet Aviation Accident Investigation Report. The first instance court rejected the lawsuit.]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "澎湃新闻此前报道，2022年5月12日，西藏航空TV9833航班在执行重庆—林芝客运任务时，在重庆机场起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。根据机组反映，飞机在起飞过程中出现异常，按程序中断起飞，偏出跑道后发动机擦地起火，目前已扑灭。机上共计122人，其中旅客113人，机组9人，已全部安全撤离。在撤离过程中，有36人擦伤扭伤，已及时送当地医院检查。该起事故事发一年后，胡磊向中国民用航空西南地区管理局（下称：民航西南局）申请政府信息公开，要求公开该起不安全事件的调查进展情况（周年报告）。"
  From Google Translate: "The Paper previously reported that on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviated from the runway during takeoff at Chongqing Airport while performing the Chongqing-Linzhi passenger transport mission. According to the crew, the aircraft had an abnormality during takeoff and interrupted takeoff according to the procedure. After deviating from the runway, the engine rubbed the ground and caught fire, which has been extinguished. There were 122 people on board, including 113 passengers and 9 crew members, all of whom have been safely evacuated. During the evacuation, 36 people were bruised and sprained and were promptly sent to local hospitals for examination. One year after the incident, Hu Lei applied to the Southwest Regional Administration of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (hereinafter referred to as the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation) for government information disclosure, requesting the disclosure of the investigation progress of the unsafe incident (annual report)."
11. Guo, Qian 郭倩 (2024-06-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空一客机在重庆机场偏出跑道起火，民航西南局通报相关处理情况" [A Tibet Airlines passenger plane veered off the runway and caught fire at Chongqing Airport. The Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China reported the relevant handling situation] (in Chinese). China Central Television. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "经调查，2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故是一起机组处置失误导致的运输航空一般事故。民航西南地区管理局按照相关法律、法规及规章，已对西藏航空公司及相关人员作出如下行政处理（处罚）决定："
  From Google Translate: "After investigation, the runway deflection accident of Tibet Airlines TV9833 Flight on May 12, 2022 was a general transport aviation accident caused by crew handling errors. In accordance with relevant laws, regulations and rules, the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation has made the following administrative handling (punishment) decisions on Tibet Airlines and related personnel:"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1-5 are all sources from the first week after the accident happened.

"The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance"

I am unable to find evidence of a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance.

Additionally, two sentences from a source is not enough to establish notability. Just because this accident was the second of its kind involving Tibet Airlines doesn't mean much unless something gives the accident some sort of notability.

Regarding the Chinese sources that you provided, saying they are independant is quite a stretch.
- The CAAC's parent agency is the Ministry of Transport which is a constituent department of the Chinese State Council.
- China Central Television is owned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party whose parent company, China Media Group, is owned by both the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of the People's Republic of China.
- China News Service is owned by the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
- Whilst I'm a bit unsure about this one, from what I can tell, Chongqing Hualong [zh] is affiliated with Chongqing Daily Newspaper Group which is the official newspaper of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party
- Southern Metropolis Daily is a constituent/owned by the Nanfang Media Group which in turn is under the supervision of the Guangdong Provincial Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). [2]
- The Paper is owned by Shanghai United Media Group which in turn is owned and overseen by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. [3]
Obviously, it cannot be expected that there will be independent newspapers in China but this does mean that the reliability of these sources can be questioned. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two years of detailed coverage is sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed coverage is quite a stretch. There isn't any coverage regarding some sort of (re)analysis of the accident. Most sources only repeat what was said by the CAAC and only stop there. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hong Kong related deletions[edit]

Patricia Sauthoff[edit]

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions[edit]

List of battles in Penghu[edit]

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

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though the small list can still be summarised on the main Penghu article. Dympies (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Raper[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 3 of the 4 sources are primary from her employer. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out, three sources are from employer. The remaining source is an interview. With due consideration to the subtleties of WP:IV I am of the view that the Asia Society interview does not qualify as a WP:RS in the context of determining whether the subject is notable. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too have come up empty-handed after searching for sources. I would like to emphasize the nom's point that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Toadspike [Talk] 08:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]