This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toChina. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 theedit 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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP: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 toAsia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
FailsWP:GNG. The one source used does not define Jiefang as a subdistrict, but as a street. The article isn't even really about the district but about migrant populations in Jiaxing City. As a subsection/neighborhood/street in Jiaxing City this doesn't qualify underWP:GEOLAND but has to passWP:SIGCOV. If we don't even have a source defining the topic in the way we are defining it here, that is a problem.4meter4 (talk)21:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was asubdistrict in China. A subdistrict in Chinese is 街道 which literally means 'street' (but it is actually a "subdistrict" - see the article for more context). I believe the first source is also referring to the subdistrict rather than a particular street, as a street/road would just use 街 or 路 instead of 街道. Thus, it is a historical place with legal recognition and should be kept perWP:GEOLAND.Sun8908Talk06:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:GNG. The topic seems to be a fringe theory by a pseudo-historian (Liu Zhongjing) with a small online following. As of this nomination there are nine citations; five of which are primary sources (citations 1, 2, and 4 are self-published by Liu; 8 and 9 are Facebook pages), while the remaining four do not even mention "Cathaysianism" orZhu Xia zhuyi (諸夏主義).
A general search of "Cathaysianism" returns noreliable sources or mentions at all aside from Twitter accounts, while a search of the original term in simplified and traditional Chinese text just returns more blogs and social media pages.Yue✉01:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing seems fine, NY Times and NBC News is certainly reliable. There is also Chinese sourcing on ZH Wikipedia so this isn't something lost in translation.JumpytooTalk17:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep I tend to suspect "this is anti-Chinese propaganda" and "these sources are made up" comments of either lack of sincerity (having a joke) or very weak sabotage of the page. Many mainstream sources mention this topic. If the article needs to be cleaned up, fine, tag it as appropriate and I'm sure someone will work on it.—DIYeditor (talk)05:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article cites abook that covers the Ordinance. Additionally, thispaper also covers it and provides the following note on its secondary literature:Secondary literature in western languages on the Twenty-nine-article Ordinance, its contents and its various implications, is rich: see Petech [1950] 1972 and 1966; Dungdkar Blo bzang ’phrin las [1991] 1993; Jagou 2007 and 2013; Chayet 2005; Schwieger 2015: 186–192; Oidtmann 2018. To this can be added various articles in the present volumeKelob2678 (talk)23:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kelob. Both sources contain sigcov of this ordinance. The second source is linked to HAL, but was later published in a peer-reviewed journal (see[3]).Toadspike[Talk]19:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should at the very least be a redirect somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Looking only at the article contents it would suggestTulku but I'm not sure if thats accurate.JumpytooTalk18:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— The Chinese Wikipedia article zh:转世灵童 already contains a solid amount of sourcing, and a quick search shows many scholarly articles on this topic in Chinese academic databases. For example:[5],[6],[7]. Based on these academic sources, the topic appears to be significant.KhantWiki (talk)18:33, 11 December 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From my removed prod: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which areWikipedia:UNRELIABLE." One source is from CNKI which is deeply influenced and parent organization is owned by the Chinese government. Online is mostly biased sources.
For March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter similar to my prod from there: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come directly from the organization itself - WP:Primary sources or come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which areWikipedia:UNRELIABLE."
Keep purely based off I do not believe this is an appropriate batch nom (the subjects are too different, first article is an award given more adhoc/generally, the second is an annual award ceremony), with no prejudice for re-nom unbundled.JumpytooTalk23:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not a reason to argue for keep. You haven't addressed the concerns of the nomination. March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter is an actual award.WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid keep reason on procedural grounds. As I said in my vote, there is no problem if the two articles were nominated separately.JumpytooTalk00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but both have the same issues. And it is still okay to nominate together for that reason alone. Same applies for Cfd, Tfd, Mfd if there are similar issues across the same arena. But nonetheless.WikiCleanerMan (talk)01:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can support a merge as suggested above. However, keep votes do not address the problems of sourcing or issues as told in the nomination. Only one keep vote is about procedure. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Chinese. There's a photo of the station that suggests it is reasonably large, but we don't have passenger statistics for the station.Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk)15:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toQinghai–Tibet railway#Existing stations: Article is very poorly sourced: Two references about its name, another unverifiable but most likely a routine announcement about its opening and another one from an hotel booking site. The sources listed in the AfD aren’t independent; they’re the same, and little more than a mention. No SIGCOV in RS.—Itzcuauhtli11 (talk)14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between the sources in the article and the ones in this discussion, I think there's enough coverage to meetWP:GNG. To be honest, I doubt we'd be having this discussion if it were a station in the US. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)04:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per above also. While a single event, the sources establish the death had an impact on Hong Kong law and culture so notability established under the renamed title.Coldupnorth (talk)22:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A decent amount of the sources used are primary or press releases (sources 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11), and the others fail to demonstrate independent notability per GNG and/or NCORP.Gommeh📖🎮16:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original sources are official annual reports from a publicly listed company, which are highly reliable. If any data were misleading, it would constitute a legal violation. The references used in the text primarily support factual data and the launch of initiatives; they do not contain controversial points, arguments, or promotional material. Therefore, no need to be removed from the English translation page.可樂走冰12345 (talk)02:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and doesn't present a global perspective on interim housing. It's a very odd article. There might be an article here somewhere but not under this title. FailsWP:GNG.4meter4 (talk)00:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reslisting since there are two different merge targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Svartner (talk)03:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: