Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China

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

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to China. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|China|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to China.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


China[edit]

Ho Yinsen[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable fictional character. Zero real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep or redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y if not notable enough. Jhenderson 777 21:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. Don't keep, it has no notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. This isn't even a marginal case. Ho Yinsen is one of the most important characters in the Iron Man mythos, and absolutely crucial to Iron Man's origin, hence why Ho Yinsen has appeared not just in the comic books, but in so many other adaptations of the character, from TV series to multiple theatrical films. —Lowellian (reply) 01:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Response: There isn't a single source cited in that article that isn't a marvel comic book. If this character is so notable, there should some be some coverage of the character from outside fictional marvel comics. Otherwise that article (A) lacks notability and (B) is just WP:Fancruft. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, it's worth noting that if the character is so important to iron man, then that can just be mentioned on the iron man wikipedia articles. That doesnt mean that Ho Yinsen needs his own article. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
There is plenty of coverage of Ho Yinsen in secondary sources: ComicBookDB, ComicVine, and MarvUnApp. Here is an article on Ho Yinsen from a non-comic-books website. Actor George Takei, who has no relationship with Ho Yinsen (has never played the character), has an essay about Ho Yinsen posted on his website. —Lowellian (reply) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to editors: the above comment from Lowellian was only recently added, after much discussion had happened later on this article. Lowellian would not allow me to move his comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion. Lowellian adding that comment to this part of the discussion is poor form because it makes it seem like i was ignoring his comment when i was talking about how no one was able to show any secondary sources later on this page. My comments about that came first, and he/she has simply added this new comment to the wrong part of this discussion - which for bizarre reasons lowellian would not allow me to move. I have responded to these sources at the bottom of this article so as to preserve the natural flow of discussion and to retain a logical chronology of events. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I was responding to your comment about lack of sources, so the appropriate place for the natural flow of the discussion is to place the comment here, directly below the comment to which it is replying. Trying to move my comment away is poor form because not only is it editing my comment without my permission, but it hides my reply to your comment and wrongly makes it seem like I did not reply to the request for sources. My comment is in the right part of this discussion, below the comment to which it is responding, since Wikipedia uses threaded discussion. Furthermore, it is logical to keep all my arguments together under the umbrella of my main bullet point instead of scattering part of my argument down to the bottom of the page as if I were multiple different editors. No one would have thought you were ignoring any comments; not only do comments have timestamps in the signature, but Wikipedia editors understand that in a threaded discussion, replies get added to earlier comments over time that may change the situation. Plus, I even put an extra note at the bottom that "I added examples in an addendum to my keep comment above" as a courtesy to make the situation clear. This was a complete non-issue, and posting this boldfaced "note to editors" attacking me needlessly injects incivility into this discussion. —Lowellian (reply) 04:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I totally disagree with everything you've just said, but I won't elaborate on this because it's irrelevant to the discussion and i don't want to derail the discussion, and thus I agree to move on. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It is because Ho Yinsen is so pivotal to Iron Man's origin story that the character appears in adaptations of Iron Man across many different forms of media, not just comic books: Ho Yinsen saved Tony Stark's life, helped him build the original Iron Man suit, and then sacrificed himself to save Tony Stark again. Batman becomes Batman because Joe Chill kills Thomas Wayne and Martha Wayne. Those characters all have Wikipedia articles. Spider-Man becomes Spider-Man because of the death of Uncle Ben. Uncle Ben also has a Wikipedia article. There is thus plenty of precedent for having articles for supporting characters whose primary role is in the origin stories of the most notable superheroes. —Lowellian (reply) 02:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Reply: Ignoring the "otherstuffexists" argument for the moment, literally every page you linked to contains a reference from the real world outside of a fictional comic book universe, something that this article doesn't have. Those examples don't help prove your case. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by saying the glossary "won't survive the next decade or two here anyway." Can you explain that? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think he's referring to an effort to remove comic character articles from Wikipedia. There are currently 72 AfDs for comic characters, 65 of which were started by the same nominator here. That editor has expressed a dislike of the proposed target and would prefer to see it reduced to a bulleted list of blue links. The list's original (and current) purpose is to provide information on characters that are only notable within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Let this page stay. He played a part in the creation of Iron Man. Plus, @Lowellian: is right about the claim that user mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore the redirect. Note to closing admin or whatever: disregard any votes that may fail WP:ATAIDD, especially the WP:PPOV ones. ミラP 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can people who want to keep this page respond to the fact that there isn't a single source used that isn't a marvel comic book? Like, this character doesn't even have an article written about him on IGN or anything like that. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I can. This is an allplot GNG fail and should always be a redirect to the most relevant list. ミラP 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of sources outside Marvel comic books. I added examples in an addendum to my keep comment above. —Lowellian (reply) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply: These are not reliable sources. "Goat" does not appear to be a mainstream news outlet with editorial standards and just seems like a random website. The comicsvine wiki appears to be something anyone to contribute to. Thecomicbook database thing is not a published article in anyway shape or form, and is just a random bit of information on the internet. Marvunapp is not a reliable source. George Takei did not write that article, some random person called dennis livesey wrote that article on his website. Georgetakei's website is not a credible news outlet with editorial standards. I wish you added these sources to the bottom of the article, adding your comment up there makes it look like we were ignoring your comment when we were saying no secondary sources have been presented because people read articles top to bottom. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    I concur with the above source assessments. Maaaaybe we could be a bit more charitable with the post on Takei's blog, but even then we'd only have one solid source, which still falls short of notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 03:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If George Takei actually wrote that piece on his blog, I would agree. A random fanboy writing something on George Takei's blog? Nope, not notable. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not George Takei's blog. It's his culture/society website with articles by many writers, and the author of the article under discussion is not some "random fanboy", but a hired writer for the website. —Lowellian (reply) 07:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Dennis Livesey (an unknown writer) wrote an very short article on George Takei's website about how a marvel fan made some tweets about an Iron Man character. I don't think this is notable enough to justify an article for Ho Yinsen. It's highly dubious whether this counts under WP:Reliable sources, it's totally WP:Fancruft, and even at best, that content from the article on Takei's website is totally insignificant failing the "significant coverage" test of WP:Notability. Surely the only options are to delete, redirect, or small partial merge. Even if we were to imagine that georgetakei's website was the new york times (which it isnt), I fail to see how one meaningless footnote is enough to justify the existence of an entire wikipedia article. Are we going to create a new wikipedia article every time a new article appears on George Takei's website? lol. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to the List of Marvel characters. The character's repeated adaptation to other media shows his importance to the fiction and a minimal amount of information should be retained. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect - No sources available to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Macau cuisine[edit]

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

I think that Macanese cuisine is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Macau cuisine, and that this should thus be converted to a redirect pointing to that article. The influences of Cantonese and Portuguese cuisine are discussed in Macanese cuisine and do not need to be disambiguated separately for this search term. I previously made this change and was reverted, so I'm bringing this discussion to a formal venue here. signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete without producing a redirect or redirect to Cantonese cuisine. This should have been an independent article and by no means a disamibguation page. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Macau cuisine is apparently Cantonese cuisine as Macanese cuisine is the food cook and eaten by Macanese people. Redirecting Macau cuisine to Macanese cuisine is somewhat similar to redirecting Canadian cuisine to Metis cuisine. More background information at Macau people#Name about the difference between the term "Macau" and "Macanese". Plus, albeit contain some Cantonese food, the article Macanese cuisine does not reflect the routine food consumed by most Macau residents. --146.95.196.199 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    I would prefer deletion over redirecting to Cantonese. A source of confusion here (which also undermines the Canadian/Metis analogy) is that Macanese in English is an adjective that can refer to anything from Macau, and is not necessarily a reference to the Macanese ethnic group, so it's entirely possible that someone will use this search term in an attempt to find Macanese cuisine, even if this could be considered inaccurate. Unless it can be demonstrated that Macau cuisine is notable independent of both Cantonese and Macanese cuisine, I think the best solution is to have a redirect pointing at Macanese cuisine and add a hatnote pointing to Cantonese cuisine. signed, Rosguill talk 00:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Macanese in English is not or at least sparsely an adjective that can refer to anything from Macau. It is an exception in the English language. See Macau people#Name and Macanese language#Name. The article Macanese cuisine if considered an article about food culture in Macau in general, is severely WP:UNDUE. --146.95.196.199 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Both Oxford [1] and Random House [2] include relating to Macau as part of their definitions for Macanese. Oxford also notes the specialized definition, and lists it alongside the more general definition. The solution to the UNDUE issue would be to start an actual article at Macau cuisine, with hatnotes between that and Macanese cuisine. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, but that usage is obsolete as you can read from Clayton, Cathryn H. (2010). Sovereignty at the Edge: Macau & the Question of Chineseness. The people of Macau used to be Tanka, then "Macaense", then Cantonese. At the second stage, the concept "of Macau" and the concept "Macanese" used to match (thus you have the dictionary entries), while at the third stage, the term "Macanese" retains its original usage and the Portuguese Macau government's attempt to redefine the term "Macanese" according to the current situation failed. So unless Wikipedia gives up its WP:COMMONNAME policy and start a compaign to redifine "Macanese", the article Macau cuisine should not be redirected to Macanese cuisine. If someone starts an article it would be great, otherwise I'd rather it stays red (deleted) or an disambiguation page. --146.95.196.199 (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think we should let other editors weigh in, but just quickly going to note that COMMONNAME is for article titles, not for redirects; we have Template:R from incorrect name for cases like this. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom - Is it plausible that someone looking for information about Cantonese food would search about Macau food? Not even slightly. However, it is very plausible that someone looking for information about Macanese food would search for "Macau cuisine", since this is an easy mistake to make. Further more, Macau is not officially part of Guangdong province, and has many other cuisines other than Cantonese (I once ate some great Portuguese food at the Club Militar De Macau, Super Bock is drunk throughout the city, and other varieties of Chinese food are available there) so a redirect to Cantonese Cuisine is not even nearly appropriate. Similarly deletion is not a good idea given that Macau is an autonomous region and is home to its own cuisine. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sunshine Shen[edit]

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

Model and supposed businessperson with a few appearances, including a Playboy cover, but lacking the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and no evidence of the large fanbase or innovative contributions required by WP:NMODEL. Full disclosure: there were several more sources before I stripped most of them out of the article, so I encourage you to assess the article as I found it. I think you will find, as I did, that these additional sources are largely interviews (not independent), mostly in questionable and/or self-published sources, or a photo gallery that adds nothing as a source. Hugsyrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Miter128 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

RAVPower[edit]

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

May not pass WP:NCORP. There's no coverage of the company itself. Also, the references are a bit scant, unless we want to write articles purely about the product.

In addition, there's a serious conflict of interest since the primary editor of the article is User:Rangga.Rav. This user may be an employee of Ravpower. User only made minor edits. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)




Hong Kong related deletions[edit]

Tuen Mun Town Centre[edit]

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

Classic set of box-in-a-box (in-a-box-in-a-box-in-a-box...and so on) . Ok there is Tuen Mun District, Tuen Mun New Town articles already, which they have legally/regulation defined boundaries. We also have Tuen Mun as article title, which don't have boundaries in legal sense since it is an non-administrative area but rich in history which predate the new town and the district . We also have Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) which should only cover the political seat at the local council. So, for this article and article title, it seem overlap to some degree (content can be entirely cover in Tuen Mun article for the sake of navigation), but more importantly WP:OR (currently no WP:RS too) since there is no definition of the "town centre" is located and the extent of it . Matthew hk (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, There is no such place "Tuen Mun Town Centre" (upper case Town Centre) but only "Tuen Mun town centre" or Tuen Mun Town Hall. Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, the zh-wiki counterpart also unsourced. And by their OR definition, their "town centre" also cover another electoral constituency Siu Tsui. Matthew hk (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Underwaterbuffalo, you stated a source finally.[3] But A. it is a primary source (a Government website about the Town Centre [sic] it partially owned and urban planned: the Town Hall and other public facility ). But B. it just one paragraph long. It amused me that did San Hui consider as part of the "Town Centre" or not, due to the very close proximity. Matthew hk (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment on comment. Glad that you are amused. Hope you can end up making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Basic standard of a wikipedia is have some citation. In 2019 wiki standard most unsourced article could be boldly drafting it. Also, "Tuen Mun Area 10", "Tuen Mun Area 11" "Tuen Mun Area 34" are more readily have source by HKU Press and Town Planning Board and designed as a town centre. But did it equal to the "Town Centre" ? It seem so much WP:OR for the boundaries and inclusion and exclusion criteria to creates articles for southern Tuen Mun, northern Tuen Mun, eastern Tuen Mun, western Tuen Mun, and for this Afd central Tuen Mun aka Tuen Mun town centre or Town Centre [sic]. Or per WP:overlap, should it better presented at Tuen Mun New Town? It seem sick to have a dozen of articles for neighbourhood that the boundaries are concentric circles, and some boundaries are even fork defined. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I created this article 8 years ago by taking out content from the Tuen Mun District article that was way too long at that time. Obviously the requirements for articles in 2019 are higher than in 2011. Good that you spotted it. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No RS never a reason of Afd. It is OR and GNG. Instead, i digged out source that suggest area around San Hui are considered as most valuable but Area 11 house the "town centre" [sic] (And San Hui and Area 11 are just next to another). For the sake of overlap, should i tagged the residential landmark is located as San Hui-Tuen Mun Town Centre, Tuen Mun New Town, Tuen Mun, Tuen Mun District, a total of 5 articles, plus Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) when they vote? Unlike place that named after nature bay. Did it sounds too much navigation to have 6 articles that at least some should be trimmed to be sections of some articles? (For San Hui, now it is not different from other high residential area of the town, thus the article did merit to trimmed already to describe the history of the area as market town.) Matthew hk (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OK forgot to state Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Tuen Mun Town Centre or Tuen Mun town centre is totally lie on the category Populated places without legal recognition (Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) had legal status but voting boundary is not based on neighbourhood in general; aka accused of gerrymandering). And further dig out the source, the government building complex such as Town Hall and the residential block that considered by media as "major" blocks of the town centre, opens in 1980s, but the residents of the new town already lives there since 1970s. So, a town without a "town centre" for a decade, or what is the definition of "Town Centre" again? Matthew hk (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to Tuen Mun District. This is the commercial zone within an actual defined neighborhood; does not need a separate article. Reywas92Talk 07:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No-go area[edit]

No-go area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article should be deleted because the topic "no-go area" is not a notable topic. Reliable sources do not discuss "no go areas", per se. Rather, there are different kinds of "no-go areas": military exclusion zones, LGBT-free zones, ghettos, and so on. But it doesn't appear any RS covers all of these disparate things as one category called "no go zone". The lead of the article shows this: it provides a definition that is actually the synthesis of three separate examples. The sources discussed in the prior 2015 AfD are also examples of particular kinds of no-go areas (to which the label "no go area" is applied), but not of a category that includes military exclusionary zones, legally-enforced exclusionary zones, de-facto political exclusionary zones, high-crime areas, etc. As a result of there not being any secondary sources defining the category, the article is (and basically always has been) a collection of WP:SYNTH. And, of course, it's constantly the subject of edit wars–repeated page protection is having no effect. This article should be deleted, and the content spun off or merged into other articles about more-specific zones, like military exclusion zone, etc. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen () 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keepish Its a real thing (And yes there are sources that talk about NO go areas), but the article is a bit of a POV mess in which various agendas are clashing. Rather then delete I think there needs to be an RFC about what the article is about, and enforce that ridgedly.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Slatersteven, can you link to some examples of RS that define a "no go area" generally (as opposed to a specific kind of exclusionary area that they label a "no go area")? Levivich 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    I can give you a dictionary definition [[4]], that is enough to tell me this may be a real thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Respectfully, I think "it's a real thing" (which was the basis for many keep votes in the last AfD) is missing the point. Yes, lots of dictionaries have an entry for "no go area", but we're an encyclopedia and we don't have a stand-alone entry for every word or phrase in the dictionary. Here's an obligatory link to WP:NOTDICTIONARY :-) I'm not finding any non-dictionary sources that discuss "no go areas" as a broad topic. In fact, the academic sources I see all use the phrase in different ways–different from each other, different from the dictionary definition. Here are some examples: "no-go area" meaning politically taboo, "no-go area" meaning segregating schools, "no-go area" meaning unpopular practice. It's like having an article called "Bad" about all the things that people call "bad'. "No-go area" is a phrase in use in English, but not an academic or notable topic in and of itself. Levivich 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That then means there is a topic, that is discussed in academia (which I think was my basic point, there is a subject here). So all this says is re theme (at best), not delete.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We have many topics that have contested/controversial definitions. We have many articles that are subject to disputes. These are not reasons to delete. The nom appears to want a definitive definition but the real world is messier. The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society from politicians to pundits to police etc.. the number of sources in the article clearly demonstrate notability. The nom's requirement for academic notability is not a reason to delete, and I find it extremely hard to believe there are not academic papers given how widely used and contested this term is politics. One doesn't need to have definitive definitions for a wikipedia article there are multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works. Anyway clearly passes GNG. -- GreenC 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    To clarify, the basis of my nomination isn't the lack of academic vs non-academic sources; it's that the topic violates WP:SYNTH policy because there are no RSes that treat the topic as a whole–there are only RSes that discuss particular, specific usages of the term, and those usages differ, and should be treated in separate articles, rather than bundled together, because the bundling is SYNTH. I find it extremely hard to believe there are not academic papers given how widely used and contested this term is politics Do you have any examples of any non-dictionary RS (academic or otherwise) that talks about how The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society from politicians to pundits to police? (As opposed to an RS that talks about just one of those usages.) I've looked and I haven't found anything, but I may have missed it. Because if it's editors who are taking a source about a politician's usage here, and a pundit's usage there, and stringing them together into one article, that's WP:SYNTH. Levivich 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure there are articles that discuss it more broadly such as [5][6][7]. There are so many articles on this topic it would be odd for Wikipedia not to have an article on such a widely reported and known topic. This Georgetown U Masters Thesis contains some interesting sources and discussions.[8] There are 20 pages of RS in the bibliography to draw from, plus the excellent overview and history of the term that could be incorporated via extracting RS. Our article might be better situated about the purported phenomenon of Muslim enclaves in Europe and USA (contextualized as part of Islamaphobia and conservative politics), beginning when Daniel Pipes coined the term in 2006, with the other uses redirected to other articles like military exclusion zones. I don't think AfD is the right place to decide though. Even if we conclude the academic sources reject no-go zones as an Islamaphobic myth [9] it still warrants an article to say as much. The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society is plainly evidence in the amount of sourcing, or for example the title of the SPLC article "'No-Go Zones': The Myth That Just Won't Quit".[10] or the article "How The ‘No-Go Zones’ Myth Traveled From The Anti-Muslim Fringe To The Mouths Of GOP Politicians". [11] It has also been discussed in books [12]. Google "no go zone" with "daniel pipes" and the types of RS sources for refactoring the article into proper context will start appearing. -- GreenC 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the sources, this exactly illustrates my point. All of those sources are about Muslim no-go zones. That is a totally notable topic, and I would be all for Muslim no-go zone sourced to those excellent sources. But No-go area is not, and does not purport to be, about Muslim no-go zones, it's about all "no go areas". And that term, "no go area", is used by RSes to apply to things other than Muslim no-go zones, such as areas of high crime, or political taboos, or segregated schools, etc., per the above sources. And so, to you, "no go area' means "Muslim no-go zone"; to someone else (dictionaries), it means high-crime areas; to someone else it's an analogy for a taboo, and so on. If we made the article about Muslim no-go zones, it should be moved to that title. If we made the article about Muslim no-go zones and other uses of the word, we are engaging in SYNTH. In either case, there shouldn't be an article about "no go areas" generally, because we only have RSes about specific uses of that term, and not the general use. Muslim no-go zone is an example of such a specific use. Levivich 20:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand what your saying though the solution of breaking it up is also problematic. The Muslim zone could and should be due to its nature, but the rest there is overlap of type (criminal and military in Ireland), and I think we loose something by scattering them around when they share common terminology. There isn't really a SYNTH problem in practice it's more of a limitation of Wikipedia in dealing with closely related topics, lumpers vs spliters. If there was a glaring OR problem that would be different but there are no controversial OR conclusions being made by housing like-named and like-topic things together, we often do this, and SYNTH is not explicit about topic-level clumping being a problem (unless a case can be made for why it is, not merely citing rules but specific to the subject matter). -- GreenC 01:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Here are four five reasons why your argument ignores available sources:
    1. Anderson, Ruben (2019). No Go World: How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics (1 ed.). University of California Press. p. 360. doi:10.2307/j.ctvfxvc07. "This book is the story of a political world gone wild. As it builds its narrative of global danger, the red zones inevitably taint it by association." pp. 257-264.
    2. Kassam, Raheem (August 14, 2017). No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781621576945.
    3. McHale, Gary (2013). Victory in the No-Go Zone. Freedom Press Canada. p. 224. ISBN 192768403X. ISBN 9781927684030.
    4. Preston, Richard (March 14, 2012). The Hot Zone: The Terrifying True Story of the Origins of the Ebola Virus. Anchor Books. p. 448. ISBN 9780307817655.
    5. Additionally, I would add the sources cited within (yes, I know it's a blog – nonetheless scholarly – and lists and links lots of WP:RSs, and these exist) Pipes, Daniel (January 17, 2015) [November 14, 2006]. "The 751 No-Go Zones of France" (PDF). They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS,
Meets WP:GNG and you have ignored WP:Before, WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper.

7&6=thirteen () 15:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep or Split: I understand the accusation of WP:SYNTH, but it feels like a stretch to apply it to a whole topic; I'm not clear what conclusion is being reached that sources don't support and various lists may have trouble meeting this standard. Moreover, WP:Broad-concept articles are generally preferred to WP:Broad-concept disambiguations. However, there does seem to be merit in the argument that the term no-go area is poorly defined; based on the lead (which has {{lead extra info}} issues), there does seem to be distinct types of zones that may be best served with separate articles. —Ost (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - This article has a serious scope problem. What can be included here? What is the very definition of the topic? We have some imaginary stuff, some politically polarized stuff, some alleged stuff, and some apparently real stuff. The sourcing? How do you source such a poorly-defined topic? I say, merge it into the dozen articles listed in "See also", something has to be a fit somewhere. Perhaps we would not be here if the topic could be defined or the article scope could be determined, but the time for that was before/during the last edit-war. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but trim - as it is the article has a lot of coatracking going on with adding places that aren't actual no-go zones like Sweden, Poland, France and so on. // Liftarn (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOTDIC, keep as a disambiguation page and split the content into military exclusion zones, LGBT-free zones, ghettos, muslim no-go-zones conspiracy theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It is obviously a "real thing" and is amply sourced. WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper. WP:Before. The issues that are listed are reasons and issues to improve the article, not DELETE it.
Fundamentally, the reasons to KEEP are the same as they were in the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-go area nomination.7&6=thirteen () 17:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – as User:7&6=thirteen says, it's clearly a real topic. The article can and should discuss the different definitions, and probably reorganized so it's not merely a list of places that have at some point been called "no-go area". The assertion that reliable sources do not cover no-go areas per se is false. There may or may not be a source discussing the fluid definition of the term, but there are certainly sources that talk about no-go areas. In regards to the recent phenomenon in Sweden for example, there was so much coverage and controversy that Snopes saw fit to check it out. Yes, the article can be split into different types of no-go zones, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted in its current form. If someone wants to create more specific articles, they are welcome to do so. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid broad concept article, although scope would benefit from clarification. This recent book (No Go World: How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics, University of California Press 2019) might help with sourcing the article, as would this paper about alleged no-go areas in Germany. This book discusses no-go areas in Northern Ireland, starting on page 177. I don't see a reason to split discussion of different types/examples of no-go zones (eg No-go zones in Northern Ireland, Muslim no-go zone claims, no go zones in various countries that can arise because of civil war, insurgency, etc.) into separate articles except for space reasons. Where no go zones exist they are variations on the same theme, places where the authorities cannot or will not access. I do think that there should be a move, No-go area -> No-go zone and No-go zone -> No-go zone (disambiguation) per COMMONNAME. buidhe 07:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment I suggest that this article might better be organized around "Types" of "no go" exclusions. If we want to have one based on specific locales, that could be part of a "History" section. I think that would address some of the issues at this 2nd AFD discussion.
This would solve the problems listed as purported justification for deletion.7&6=thirteen () 14:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Anderson, Ruben (2019). No Go World: How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics (1 ed.). University of California Press. p. 360. doi:10.2307/j.ctvfxvc07. 7&6=thirteen () 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nom comment: After reading the above !votes, I'm now 100% convinced that no-go area should be turned into a disambiguation page.
    • Slatersteven's example RS defines "no go area" as a high-crime area that people avoid [13]
    • GreenC's example RSes are about "Muslim no-go zones" [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
    • 7&6=thirteen's example RSes define "no go zone" as war zones, "Muslim no-go zones", racially segregated high-crime areas, areas infected by the Ebola virus, and Sensitive urban zones in France [22].
    • Ynhockey's example RS is about high-crime areas avoided by police (which the source says don't actually exist, at least in Sweden) [23]
    • Buidhe's example RSes are about war zones [24], "areas dominated by neo-Nazis" in Germany [25], and urban areas in Northern Ireland where state security forces were unable to operate between 1969–1972 [26].
    • My example RSes use the term "no go area" to describe segregated schools, political taboos, and unpopular practices.
    • Liftarn says "trim... places that aren't actual no-go zones" but doesn't provide any RS to tell us what is and what is not an "actual no-go zone"
    • I think the premise of my nomination has been proven: no RS discusses all of these things in one article or book; rather, every RS discusses a different type of no-go area. Because no RS combines them, for Wikipedia to combine them would be SYNTH. We would be stringing together different things–like "Muslim no-go zones", neo-Nazi "no-go zones" in Germany, Sensitive urban zones in France, war zones in the developing world, high-crime areas, segregated areas, and saying they are related, when NO RS says these things are related.
    • Ost316 points to WP:Broad-concept articles, which "no go area" would seem to be, except that we have no RS about the broad concept. The examples given in WP:Broad-concept articles are articles like History of France and Supreme court. You'll find RSes talking about the History of France, generally, and comparing different nations' supreme courts, but we don't have an RS that talks about war zones AND high-crime areas AND high-Nazi areas in Germany AND loyalist enclaves in Northern Ireland AND political taboos, etc. etc. We don't have an RS that makes that connection, so it's inappropriate for us to make that connection.
    • WP:Broad-concept articles has a really great example of how to test this, using the "expert" test:
      • There are some common tests that can be used to determine whether an article can potentially be considered a broad concept article. One of these is "expert" test: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [name of page], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in the typical university)? For example, although there are many species of tuna that are called "bluefin tuna" an icthyologist could be an expert in "bluefin tuna" without needing to specify a particular species. Compare that to a person claiming to be a "Mercury" expert, or a "battery" expert. The expert on "Mercury" would need to have both Roman mythology and astronomy in his knowledge base, along with chemistry. The expert on "battery" would need both chemical engineering and legal training, as well as some military history and (depending how significant the subtopic was considered) baseball.

    • "No go area" is exactly like "Mercury" and "battery", both of which are disambiguation pages. We don't have a single article that talks about Mercury the Greek god, mercury the element, and Mercury the planet. We don't have a single article that discusses battery the energy source, battery the crime, and battery the group of artillery, all in one article. Those are disparate things that have a common name, and so are "no-go areas". It's unlikely a single person would be an expert in Muslim no-go zones, Northern Ireland no-go zones, high crime areas, war zones in the developing world, political taboos, the rise of neo-Nazis in Germany, and so on.
    • If there are no objections – particularly from the split/merge !voters Ost316, Elizium23, and Visite fortuitement prolongée – I'm happy to withdraw this nom and pursue dabbing-and-splitting the article on the talk page. Thanks to everyone for their feedback. Levivich 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Or we re-jig the article to be about the different interpretations and usages of the term.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - the last AFD was a snow keep. There was no reason to renominate this, and I question the competence of anyone who would nominate this. How is this not interrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Article needs improvement. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I am confident that this article warrants inclusion. RSs exist Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails NSCHOOL. Over 14 years ago this article survived an AFD with an overwhelming majority !voting various wording of "Keep and cleanup". 424 revisions with 157 editors and the only reference is a dead link and apparently "External links" for sourcing. In 2017 it was determined that notability and ORG was a determining factor for an article as there is no inherent notability. The article has substantial size that is actually indicative that there could be a whole lot of WP:original research. This is hard to disprove because there are no references so no inline citations. Otr500 (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I have looked again at the guidelines, I have read the article and Googled the school. This AfD is just vexatious. Google provides 224,000 results. One of them "SSP Profiles 2018/2019 Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School". SSP2018. Retrieved 23 November 2019. , independant of the school could verify almost all of the article- a sort of HK-GIAS site. For notability we have to prove the information could be verified- not that someone has verified it. There is a dead link- just go to the site index."Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School". www.blmcss.edu.hk. Retrieved 23 November 2019. it is all still there. Note that is a primary source.ClemRutter (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The claim that because an article is long it must involve OR is ludicrous. I scan read the site I mentioned- and found no copyvios, before that is claimed. This is average length article for a B standard following WPSCH/AG.
That 159 editors (sorry 160) have contributed does prove some sort of notability in its self. It is the only Baptist School in Sha Tin with a unique spiritual offer. ClemRutter (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The site "SSP2018" contains "The school information is provided and vetted by schools.". This is absolutely not "independent of the school" so I am not sure why this would be stated as fact. Listing that "Google provides 224,000 results" does not prove anything. I searched a high school I am familiar with and it returned "About 2,610,000 results (0.61 seconds)". WP:WPSCH/AG (an essay) does state in the "Notability" section "Wikipedia decides whether a school is notable enough for a stand-alone article by assessing, if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". When something is challenged stating "For notability we have to prove the information could be verified- not that someone has verified it.", becomes a moot point. Verifiability is a policy and states All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. Further information on schools and notability can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. I am sure, since you are listed as a coordinator, you already know most of this though.
Here is a suggestion: Instead of becoming frustrated or asserting that comments on so much unsupported contented being possible OR is ludicrous, pick three of the "204,000" reported Google hits, that are actually reliable and independent sources, and add them to the article. Of course since there are the supposedly "204,000" sources there should be enough to provide ample references and lots of inline citations. Since I couldn't find them it would be a big help and certainly a Hey. Anything short of that would be paramount to just claiming but I like it! as it does currently fail WP:NSHOOL and\or Wikipedia:ORG. Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Google result is nothing. Sometimes it just inflated by mirror site or junk or just plain wrong from their web API. If among "204,000" results there are some WP:RS that have in-depth coverage, it is worth to keep. If all the result are from facebook social network or content farm or just routine mention, it is not worth to keep it. Matthew hk (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment Cunard, one source is an interview of the principal , which is between primary and secondary source? Another one is about a student of that school (and also an interview), which nothing in detail for that school. Another one is about an event related to the overseer of the school, Hong Kong Baptist Convention, fails to register the list of directors. So the school itself is routinely mentioned. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Based on no in-depth source. Unless people form a new consensus that wiki article about school can have full or routine information only. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This school analysis site give adequate in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG. "Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School ‒ HKDSE information @ Big Exam". dse.bigexam.hk. Retrieved 9 December 2019. The bar is that we have to ascertain there exists two or possibly one in-depth source- this one goes into great depth. Pass. ClemRutter (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
It clearly bigexam.hk not a reliable source. Any "metric" site for HK secondary schools were not reliable and dubious COI as possible ransom to the school by asking them to pay for a better scores. Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion." According to Wikipedia rules, deletion should not be sought if the article could be improved. If the lack of references is the issue, then that is clearly a way to improve it. Alternatively, a merging action could be suggested. However, in order to observe the change - or the lack thereof - of educational influences from the handover, it cannot be simply merged with the governors' page, but to be a standalone page.


Taiwan related deletions[edit]