Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Chinese-language entertainment)
中華/中华 Welcome to WikiProject China
(changes)
Chinese article statistics

This list is automatically updated every night around 3 AM (UTC)
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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 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.
  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.
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:
Purge page cache watch


China

edit

Nahida (Genshin Impact)

edit
Nahida (Genshin Impact) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG - while the article is WP:REFBOMBed fairly heavily, there is only trivial coverage and unreliable sources. Multiple editors have noted its failure of GNG, but it was moved into mainspace anyway while disregarding the advice, so I am forced to create an AfD for it to determine the way forward. List of Genshin Impact characters is a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is this, which appears to be SIGCOV. There is also this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not waste peoples' time throwing out random sources where the name pops up. Explain what exactly about each source demonstrates significant coverage, especially since they are in different languages and not easily understandable. The first source appears to be about "translation techniques" and only uses the character as a random example? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree about the first source, it doesn't look very usable. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the second source in detail, but it at least looks promising. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just used the ChatGPT to help me read through the second journal. It seems to not have character-design analysis at all for Nahida. Quote ChatGPT: The piece titled “Artificial Intelligence Represented in Genshin Impact, Regulatory Initiatives, and Algorithmic Literacy” uses Genshin Impact’s Sumeru/Akasha arc as a case study to think about real-world AI issues. However, this article uses Nahida’s role as a metaphor for promoting algorithmic literacy and resisting blind dependence on data systems. This feels tricky. If we are to use this source in the article, I can't imagine what the Reception will be like -- though indeed "usable." SuperGrey (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ChatGPT conversation. The article is too long to get a word-to-word translation from ChatGPT, so this is as far as I can get. SuperGrey (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I agree that this page should stay in Draft namespace, GNG talks about its potential, not its current state. We were just talking about the RS problem in the talk page, and I found these two sources: Youxi Tuoluo and Final Weapon. The reliability of both sources is currently being discussed in zhwiki and our source discussion page. Therefore, I suggested that we could wait till clearer source evaluations are established -- but alas, @Zxcvbnm probably did not notice the discussion thread in the talk page. SuperGrey (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately I did miss that. However, I believe that is fairly moot with regards to this article, as the Final Weapon source is trivial coverage regardless, and is largely about the more overarching plot of the DLC/expansion/patch/etc. than the character of Nahida herself. It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. Therefore, whether or not it is considered reliable, it shouldn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. -- You need to READ the source, whether through Google Translate or some AI translators. I personally find the Youxi Tuoluo article to be largely focused on Nahida's character design. SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read it, but it seems like a review of the new story/expansion at large, discussing the character of Nahida in an incidental manner while doing so. I'm not sure it rises to the level of SIGCOV within that summary. Assuming people do believe that it does, it's still just one source out of multiple ones needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree your point, though SIGCOV looks good enough for Chinese game media like Youxi Tuoluo. They rarely write article dedicated to fictional character only, as they (the good ones) care more about the real-world perspective than English media do.
Here is the third round source search:
  1. Game Daily. A marginally reliable source, so not for GNG, though it might be useful in the article.
  2. Youxi Putao. A generally reliable source, yet the article itself talks about lots of stuff, while Nahida is just a small portion of it. Might be SIGCOV, but that's even more up-to-debate than the Youxi Tuoluo article.
And three more passing mentions that might be useful for the article: Youxi Putao, Youxi Putao, Jinghe.
Heck, why not just write an article about Sumeru instead? My three source hunts have already proven that Sumeru is GNG. We can even think of one possible solution to be redirecting Nahida (Genshin Impact) to a section inside Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
zh:须弥 (原神) is translation-worthy if anyone decides to write Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on it then. As a Genshin fan I think it's about time I write a draft about it. I've gone ahead and done that at Draft:Sumeru (Genshin Impact). Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Youxi Tuoluo source is definitely useable, either in an article about Nahida (though maybe not to demonstrate notability) or in one about Sumeru as a whole. I found it quite informative and reliable. Gommeh 📖/🎮 14:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where on-wiki was this discussed beforehand? Wherever it was, I must have missed it. Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Genshin Impact characters. I did a LOT of source searching for this character back in 2024 when I made the articles for Furina and Paimon. Unfortunately, there is not enough critical commentary towards Nahida herself to justify an article. It sucks because she IS mentioned in sources a lot (hence the refbombing), but none of it is substantial. The best there is is attribution or discussion of her popularity, but it's not actual reception. None of what is in the article right now, as a matter of fact, is reception. FYI Venti had stronger sourcing out there regarding him than Nahida, and that article was also redirected. There's just not enough here. λ NegativeMP1 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. @Gommeh: you can start moving content into List of Genshin Impact characters, in a concise manner. The List itself is very fancruft right now -- you may need to restructure it a bit. SuperGrey (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I will later, right now I have a few more important projects related to Genshin that I'm working on at the moment, including the Sumeru draft I mentioned earlier. I'd be more than willing to turn the article into a stub, but IDK if there's enough notability even for that. Would like to hear thoughts on that idea. Gommeh 📖/🎮 00:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QQLive

edit
QQLive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Feng, Liju; Yang, Jie; Zhou, Wenli (November 2009). "Research on active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system". 2009 IEEE International Conference on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICNIDC.2009.5360863.

      The abstract notes: "Based on the analysis of QQLive protocol, an active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system was presented by the in-depth study of characteristic message and characteristic payload in the communication process of QQLive. The system acquires the channel list and program information, at the same time monitors the viewing user information by forging the client to send message to the server. Theoretical analysis and experiments demonstrate that the active monitoring based method has higher controllability and accuracy in comparison with the passive monitoring based method. The active monitoring based real-time information acquisition system provides an important data foundation to the content detection and user behavior analysis of P2P streaming media."

      The aritcle notes: "QQLive is large-scale video broadcast software developed by Tencent. It uses advanced P2P streaming media playing technology, the more users the more fluent playing and more stable. ... The communication process of QQLive will be described in detail, which has provided an important basis for the real-time information acquisition system design."

    2. Yang, Jie; Li, Yin-zhou; Dong, Chao; Ma, Zheng; Cheng, Gang (October 2012). "The impact of typical applications on network traffic". The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications. 19: 98–103.

      The article notes: "Many researches showed that the usage of P2P applications is growing dramatically and typical P2P streaming applications such as PPLive, PPStream, and QQLive become very popular. ... QQLive (a commercial video-streaming application that is delivered through P2P) ... PPStream and QQLive belong to P2PStream. ... So we can know that HTTP, PPStream, HTTPFlash, QQLive and Thunder play an important role in network traffic. ... QQLive has the lowest correlation coefficient both on Thursday and Sunday, and the values are 0.991 and 0.986, which remain considerably high. "

    3. Wang, Jingqun 王敬群; Yang, Wang 杨望; Ding, Wei 丁伟 (2010). "部分应用软件使用UDP协议调查" [Investigation on the Use of the UDP Protocol by some Application Software] (PDF). 第十二届海峡两岸信息（资讯）技术（CSIT2010） [The 12th Cross-Strait Information Technology Conference (CSIT2010)] (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "QQLive:QQLive 是一款由腾讯开发的网络电视软件。对抓包结果分析可知，QQLive 可以同时兼容TCP 和UDP 方式，但以UDP 协议主。软件启动后，UDP 较少（低于5%），正式播放后，UDP 逐渐增多，最终所占比率大于 80%，其中包含使用 UDP 封装的QICQ，STUN 应用层协议和没有应用层的UDP协议。图6为其中的一次抓包结果。"

      From Google Translate: "QQLive: QQLive is an online TV application developed by Tencent. Analysis of packet capture results shows that QQLive is compatible with both TCP and UDP, but primarily uses UDP. After the software is launched, UDP traffic is relatively low (less than 5%). After live streaming, UDP traffic gradually increases, ultimately exceeding 80%. This includes QICQ using UDP encapsulation, the STUN application layer protocol, and UDP without an application layer. Figure 6 shows the results of one such packet capture."

    4. Zhang, Renfei; He, Side; Jia, Yanyan; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Leilei (2012-04-06). "Traffic Analysis of Popular Peer-to-Peer IPTV VoD Systems". ICEICE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Second International Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering. Vol. 3. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 958–962. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The abstract notes: "In order to gain insights to the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics of the VoD systems of the four most popular P2P IPTV, namely PPTV, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live, this paper develops and deploys a passive network measurement with a sniffer tool in the experiment test bed designed, then analyses the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics. The key findings include: 1) PPTV uses TCP protocol with port 80 to send the video streaming, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live use UDP protocol with Non-well-known port to send and receive the video traffic, 2) The download rate of PPTV, PP Stream and Kankan is periodic, QQ live does not show any obvious pattern, 3) CCDF of the download-peers lifetime of PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live follow a Weibull distribution."

    5. Wang, Wenxian; Chen, Xingshu; Wang, Haizhou; Zhang, Qi; Wang, Cheng (2014-03-19). "Measurement and Analysis of P2P IPTV Program Resource". The Scientific World Journal. Vol. 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/101702. ProQuest 1561736104.

      The article notes: "PPTV and QQLive only offer 6-level popularity. Thus, we must normalize the number of viewers according to the number of online viewers of various IPTV applications. In June 2010, the maximum viewers of PPStream, UUSee, PPTV, and QQLive are about 20.0, 2.0, 11.0, and 6.6 million, respectively. ... While hierarchy depth distribution of QQLive is quite different from that of other applications, its 4-hierarchy programs account for 57.22%. Thus, its programs are prone to used short name."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow QQLive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of protected areas of China

edit
List of protected areas of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is one of the largest pages we have and it's 100% uncited. I couldn't even check how many bytes it was with the page size tool because it crashed my browser. Usually with pages like this I would do some work on it and remove unreferenced material, but this is such a massive page (and topic) that I feel like the page should just be nuked per WP:TNT. If someone wants to actually make a good list about this topic, it would genuinely be more helpful to start from scratch than to try to salvage this list. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the entire page's contents were duplicated in November. I just deleted that so the size should be more manageable, now at 296k bytes. I share your concern about the lack of sources but I think this is still a good starting point and starting from scratch would certainly not be easier. It may be best to split a section to List of national nature reserves of China and the first section to List of national parks of China. Unfortunately I'm not finding many sources in English but I made a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China for assistance. Reywas92Talk 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Draftify: According to this 2024 government announcement, China has more than 11,000 natural protected areas. Even dividing into articles for its 22 provinces, this is still going to be a big list. However, there is at least one scholarly secondary source on the topic, including: Binbin V. Li and Stuart L. Pimm. "How China expanded its protected areas to conserve biodiversity". Current Biology, vol. 30, no. 22 (2020): R1334-R1340. ISSN 0960-9822 doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.09.025. Rublamb (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do have similar lists for most countries. ZH wiki at a glance seems to split the lists by type of park (ex. national, wetland, national forest...), so that would be an option to resolve the sizing issues. Jumpytoo Talk 04:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

007 working hour system

edit
007 working hour system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having trouble finding reliable sources that cover this 007 concept in depth. The sources in the article are a Wired article with a passing mention, and a podcast with a passing mention in the podcast summary. Additional googling (to try to figure out what this 007 concept really means, since it's physically impossible for someone to work 24 hours a day 7 days a week) left me confused and without a good understanding of this concept, suggesting this concept isn't really covered by reliable sources in enough detail. Appears to fail the WP:SIGCOV part of WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have said before on the 007 talk. It likely means the company has a 24/7 work schedule and not the people. It could mean the worker lives next to his computer and takes breaks as needed for sleeping so technically never off the clock. It depends on what their definition of rotational work force means not ours. I believe quoting the sources are sufficient and adding our commentary to explain the insanity/illogic of the concept is not my job to start over thinking it. If you think about it, how many other business paradigms articles covered by WP are essentially smoke and mirrors from businesses covering up something else? The sources are Wired magazine and NPR are not fly by night organizations and they thought it was important to include in their work so it should be be mentioned in WP. Septagram (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Rotational work force" is a bit vague. I don't know what that means without further explanation, and the sources I went looking for to explain this didn't really fully explain this. But anyway, that can be discussed on the article talk page if the article is kept. The fundamental problem from a Wikipedia deletion guideline perspective is that this topic probably doesn't pass WP:GNG's "significant coverage" bullet. Significant coverage in my opinion is about 3 meaty paragraphs of detail about the concept, in about 3 reliable sources. Some other editors might have lower standards such as 2 and 2, but no matter what, we need more than just passing mentions of one or two sentences, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added lots of references and definitions so you should be happier now. Septagram (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think there is enough coverage in reliable sources to support mentioning the 007 working hour system on Wikipedia. But there probably is insufficient coverage to support a standalone article as the sources I found largely provide passing mentions of the subject. The 007 working hour system has been called "an exaggeration" (Cheuk 2021), "a joke" (Dai & Tao 2019), and a way for "mocking the system" (Mukherjee 2025). The 007 working hour system usually is discussed alongside the 996 working hour system. Possible merge targets are 996 working hour system and Labor relations in China. Here are sources I found about the subject:
    1. English-language sources:
      1. Pak, Jennifer (2025-08-14). "Work weeks are getting more intense for AI startups. As the AI arms race heats up, the U.S. and China are leaning into longer work weeks. Marketplace's Jennifer Pak takes us behind the scenes of China's '007' work schedule". Marketplace. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        This is a 26-minute video. The article notes: "The new tech trend is the “007” workweek, which does not look like the lifestyle of an international Playboy spy at all. It entails working midnight to midnight, seven days a week — no martinis involved. Marketplace’s China correspondent Jennifer Pak gave us a behind-the-scenes look at the “007” work schedule."

      2. Dai, Sarah; Tao, Li (2019-01-29). "China's work ethic stretches beyond '996' as tech companies feel the impact of slowdown". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-05-04. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "For Ding, the Shenzhen tech worker, it may not be that bad after all. “Though I feel mentally and physically tired all the time, we are paid better than most others in the industry, so we don’t deserve to complain about longer working hours,” he says. He may have spoken too soon. A joke circulating on Chinese social media refers to a new work ethic – “007”, that is “00.00am to 00.00pm”, seven days a week."

      3. Su, Xiaobo (2024). Unhomely Life: Modernity, Mobilities and the Making of Home in China. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-394-17630-4. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "The grinding 9-9-6 work culture is widely used in some of China's most prestigious IT corporations. To borrow the words of Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba (one of China's largest IT corporations), this culture represents a fortune bestowed on those who work hard and earn high salaries. The condition in some corporations is even worse, due to a new work ethic coded as 007, which means working from midnight to midnight, seven days a week, and resting only on rota-tions. Both work cultures overtly defy the Labor Law enacted in 1995."

      4. "China's youth are rebelling against long hours". The Economist. 2024-05-16. Archived from the original on 2024-08-09. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "Attitudes began to slowly change in 2019 after Jack Ma, a co-founder of Alibaba, celebrated the “blessing” of what he called the “996” work week—working from 9am to 9pm, six days a week. That set off a wave of online griping. Before long workers began to speak of “007” shifts—24 hours a day, seven days a week."

      5. Master, Farah; Yu, Sophie (2025-04-08). "In China, whispers of change as some companies tell staff to work less". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2025-07-24. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "Recent years have even seen the emergence of a new term "007", referring to being either at work or on call all day every day."

      6. Mukherjee, Vasudha (2025-06-04). "No more 70-hour work weeks? China clamps down on 996 overtime culture". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "Workers began mocking the system with phrases like “007”—working all day, every day."

    2. Chinese-language sources:
      1. Cheuk, Pak-on 卓柏安 (2021-05-31). "996、886、715、007｜內地瘋傳4組數字　工作制背後加班加到入ICU" [996, 886, 715, 007: Four Viral Work Schedules in Mainland China. Overtime So Extreme It Sends Workers to the ICU]. HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes "至於最後的007實在太過誇張，相信並非真實存生的工時制度，現實上亦都無法實現。007更多是指向一些工作幾乎需要全天候待命，甚至是極度熱愛工作及銷售經紀類工作從業員對自己工作狀態的形容，007亦形容一些十分「困身」、壓力大、需要長時間跟進的工作。"

        From Google Translate: "As for the final 007, it's an exaggeration. It's believed to not be a real-world working schedule and is unrealistic. 007 more often refers to jobs that require near-round-the-clock availability, even for those who are extremely passionate about their work, such as sales agents. 007 also describes jobs that are extremely demanding, stressful, and require long hours of follow-up."

      2. Ke, Jinding 柯金定, ed. (2019-04-16). "007公司是什么梗 007工作制具体规定是什么" [What's the Deal with '007 Companies'? What Are the Specific Rules of the 007 Work System?]. Minnan Net (in Chinese). Fujian Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "007公司是什么梗一种比996更狠的弹性工作制。从0点到0点，一周7天不休息。俗称24小时"

        From Google Translate: "What is the 007 company? A more flexible working system than 996. From midnight to midnight, 7 days a week without rest. Commonly known as 24 hours."

      3. Miss Lychee 荔枝小姐 (2021-01-20). Wu, Ling-chen 吳玲臻; Lin, Hsin-ping 林欣蘋 (eds.). "23 歲女孩過勞致死、「007」工時成常態——中國互聯網產業「用命換錢」的血汗紀實" [23-Year-Old Woman Dies from Overwork, 007 Becomes the Norm. How China's Tech Industry Turns Human Lives into Profit]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-07-22. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "我與還在互聯網打拚的朋友求證，對方表示 007 的狀況確實已經相當普遍，有人平均下班時間是半夜 2-3 點，早上 10 點前要抵達公司，而且週末跟國定假日幾乎都沒得休息。"

        From Google Translate: "I checked with a friend who's still working in the internet industry, and he said the "007" situation is indeed quite common. Some people leave work at an average of 2-3 a.m., arrive at the office by 10 a.m., and barely get any time off on weekends or national holidays."

      4. Liu, Yuanju 刘远举 (2021-09-02). Zhu, Xuesen 朱学森 (ed.). "新京智库："996、007"时代要结束了 背后有这些原因" [Beijing News Think Tank: The Era of '996' and '007' Is Coming to an End. Here's Why]. Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Sina Corporation.

        The article notes: "近日，人社部和最高法联合发布超时加班劳动人事争议典型案例，为企业“划红线”，这意味着明确“996”和“007”工作制度是违法的。... 而所谓“007”，则是指从0点到0点，一周7天不休息。"

        From Google Translate: "Recently, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme People's Court jointly released typical cases of labor and personnel disputes involving excessive overtime work, drawing a red line for companies. This means that the "996" and "007" work systems are illegal. ... The so-called "007" refers to working from midnight to midnight, seven days a week without a break."

      5. "科企行3組數字制 「007」最苛刻" [Tech Companies Adopt Three Work Schedules: '007' Is the Harshest]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2024-11-11. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "更苛刻數字則有「007」，所指是凌晨零時起上班至翌日零時下班，每周工作7天，即全天候工作，24小時候命，確保員工每天每秒都在工作；這與大家聽慣聽熟的「247」相同。"

        From Google Translate: "Even more demanding is the "007" work schedule, which means starting at midnight and finishing at midnight the following day, seven days a week. This means working around the clock, ensuring employees are working every second of every day. This is similar to the familiar "247" work schedule."

      6. "996和007是违法不是奋斗，过度加班是对员工的盘剥" [996 and 007 Are Illegal, Not Hard Work. Excessive Overtime Is Exploitation of Employees]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). 2021-03-12. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Phoenix Television.

        The editorial notes: "不管是996，还是007，都是违法行为。对违法行为纵情美化，不是糊涂，就是别有用心。"

        From Google Translate: "Whether it's 996 or 007, both are illegal. Unbridled glorification of illegal behavior is either foolish or has ulterior motives."

    Cunard (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources say 007 came about due to Work From Home (WFH) during the Covid pandemic. Others mention people living at the office 24/7. A few do use the term in a humorous way, but mostly it is serious and becoming more common as the work force becomes more competitive. Septagram (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are references to it as a joke, which seems to be the best explanation. It strains credulity to believe a 168 work week is "becoming more common". It's not only illegal but probably physically and mentally impossible to accomplish (consider debates on errors by long-rotation MD residents) on anything but a short-term basis. Stories like Oriental Daily strain the sometimes-narrow credibility ODN has. Based on what @Cunard has found this AfD probably ends with keep, but the article if kept needs to express greater incredulity at any suggestion this is a genuine, common practice. Oblivy (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 996 working hour system. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE if inclusion in a larger article would provide useful additional context then it can be included there rather than in a stub. This would resolve the greater incredulity needed issue and we can revive the article if (somehow) this becomes a thing that is having a real world impact rather than what appears to be absurd hyperbole about employer expectations Oblivy (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the sources that say 007 came about due to Work from Home (WFH) during the Covid pandemic and people living at the office 24/7? I think people are fixating on mostly the humorous aspects. Labor unions point to types of 007 as a possible loophole for employers to drive an oil tanker through. I think it need an article. Septagram (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a lack of serious inquiry and evidence from press outlets claiming an actual 168 hour work week. Do you believe that people are really at the workplace for 168 hours? The article won't even say for sure. Context is important, and the 996 article will provide it in a way that this article never can. Oblivy (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This might be better covered in an article on Labor practices in China. The issue here is the term is a WP:NEOLOGISM. Another possible way to cover this would be in a subsection in an article on the 1995 Labor Law referenced in the sources above. Criticisms of the law, or flouting of the law could be a reasonable part of that article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yangwei Linghua

edit
Yangwei Linghua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn's have enough significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which is needed to show notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 21:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nearly all coverage of the subject is in Chinese. She's the lead singer for Phoenix Legend, which is a very popular musical duo in China and has been for over twenty years now. You can read an interview here that talks about them and their career, and there's a few articles on Sina that talks about them as well. As for Linghua herself, searching her name in Chinese pulls up hundreds of articles
I will also try to do some work on the article when I get the chance. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to this, Linghua was a main competitor on Riding the Wind 2025 [zh] (the sixth season of a popular music competition show on Mango TV) And while not the most reliable source, Baidu Baike has a nice list of every single released by Linghua as a solo artist, which you can find sources for their existance elsewhere. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. The sources found by Microplastic Consumer (talk · contribs). Thank you!
    2. Fan, Wenting 范文婷 (2015-11-14). "玲花新歌太洗脑！1岁女儿都会唱了" [Linghua's new song is so catchy! Even her 1-year-old daughter can sing it] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

      The article notes: "凤凰传奇组合的杨魏玲花和曾毅，两人“分道扬镳”各寻搭档，并同时出了新歌。尤其，玲花的新歌《出去玩》由张惠妹的御用创作人阿怪监制，与歌手曹格、新秀SNH48李艺彤合作，歌曲十分洗脑，玲花称连她一岁四个月的女儿都会唱了！ ... 没了曾毅的伴唱，玲花选择强强联合，与创作型歌手曹格结成新搭档，并与新秀SNH48李艺彤一起。在侗寨采风过程中，收获快乐和笑声，甚至产生再来旅行玩耍的想法，于是创作新歌《出去玩》，该歌旋律明快，歌词简单明了直中人心，"

      From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend's Yang Wei Linghua and Zeng Yi have parted ways, each pursuing their own partners and releasing new music. Linghua's new song, "Go Out and Play," is especially catchy, produced by A-Mei's regular songwriter, Aguai, and features singer Gary Chaw and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. Linghua claims even her one-year-four-month-old daughter can sing it! ... Without Zeng Yi's backing vocals, Linghua chose to join forces, forming a new partnership with singer-songwriter Gary Cao and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. The field trip to the Dong village brought joy and laughter, and even inspired her to travel and play again. This led to the creation of a new song, "Go Out and Play." The song boasts a bright melody and simple, clear lyrics that hit home."

    3. Li, Hsin-tung 李鋅銅 (2014-06-25). "力挺陸大媽 鳳凰傳奇嗆美媒 廣場舞被批喧鬧 玲花指惹火大媽後果嚴重" [Standing up for Chinese 'dama': Phoenix Legend fires back at U.S. media. Square dancing criticized as noisy, Linghua warns that angering the 'dama' has serious consequences]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

      The article notes: "「鳳凰傳奇」主唱玲花覺得自己是「躺著也中槍」，超級不爽，於是在22日發布的微博中調侃《華爾街日報》，並力挺中國大媽。... 她還追溯八國聯軍的歷史，說美國大兵曾經在中國北京搶東西，到現在東西還沒還呢，這不僅僅是擾民行為， ... 「鳳凰傳奇」是大陸知名的男女二人音樂組合，成員包括女聲主唱楊魏玲花和男聲和聲、說唱曾毅。被認為是2005年後大陸較具影響力的歌手組合之一，出道以來共發行5張原創專輯。"

      From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend lead singer Ling Hua felt incredibly upset, feeling like she was being "shot in the face even when lying down." She mocked the Wall Street Journal in a Weibo post on the 22nd and offered her support for the Chinese dama. ... She also traced the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance, saying that American soldiers once looted items in Beijing, China, and still haven't returned them. This isn't just a nuisance. ... Phoenix Legend is a well-known mainland Chinese duo, consisting of lead vocalist Yang Wei Linghua and backing vocalist and rapper Zeng Yi. Considered one of the most influential singing groups in mainland China since 2005, they have released five original albums since their debut."

    4. Peng, Lizhao 彭立昭 (2012-04-29). "杨魏玲花"凤凰传奇"的爱情传奇" [The Romantic Story of Yangwei Linghua from Phoenix Legend]. People [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

      The article notes: "杨魏玲花是著名歌唱组合“凤凰传奇”的主唱，来自大草原的她声音高亢激昂，穿透力极强，在内地歌坛掀起了一轮又一轮的狂潮。玲花的丈夫徐明朝是音乐主编、著名乐评家和词曲作家，两人从相识的第一天起，就结下了不解之缘，2011年3月，他们携手走入婚姻殿堂。他们的爱情就像玲花在歌里唱的那样：... 就在玲花对进军春晚充满了希望时，一件意想不到的事情发生了：有人爆料《月亮之上》涉嫌抄袭英国歌曲《All Rise》……玲花觉得很委屈，她知道这是一首明明白白的原创歌曲，怎么就成了抄袭作品呢？为了弄清楚事情真相，春晚专家组对《月亮之上》与《AllRise》进行了全方位的鉴定，最终认为并不构成抄袭。"

      From Google Translate: "Yang Wei Linghua is the lead singer of the renowned singing group "Phoenix Legend." Hailing from the prairie, her voice is soaring, passionate, and penetrating, creating waves of sensations on the mainland music scene. Linghua's husband, Xu Mingchao, is a music editor, renowned critic, and songwriter. From the first day they met, they bonded, marrying in March 2011. Their love is just like what Linghua sings about in her song: ... Just when Linghua was full of hope for a spot on the Spring Festival Gala, something unexpected happened: someone reported that "Above the Moon" was suspected of plagiarizing the British song "All Rise." Linghua felt deeply wronged. She knew it was a clearly original song, so how could it be considered a copy? To clarify the matter, the Spring Festival Gala expert panel conducted a comprehensive evaluation of both "Above the Moon" and "All Rise" and ultimately determined that they did not constitute plagiarism."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yangwei Linghua (simplified Chinese: 杨魏玲花; traditional Chinese: 楊魏玲花; pinyin: Yángwèi Línghuā; Mongolian: Үүлэнхуар Üülenkhuar) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided here between editors advocating Keeping it and those arguing for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]



edit

MultiBank

edit
MultiBank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG notability guidelines. All three cited sources seem to be WP:CORPTRIV. Searching online, I failed to find any WP:CORPDEPTH coverage. It appears to be yet another Forex broker. A dedicated article seems to be premature at this moment. Vgbyp (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Kam Man

edit
Tang Kam Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hantec Financial 1

edit
Hantec Financial 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined 4 times for notability issues at AfC, then finally rejected with no indication of notability. Author moved to mainspace.

I see no indication this company meets WP:NORG qcne (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hong Kong post offices

edit
List of Hong Kong post offices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTPRICE explicitly says that lists of offices or locations are not permitted on Wikipedia. PROD was removed because of a secondary source discussing the grouping being added to the article, but it doesn't alleviate NOTPRICE. Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - My only concern is that this is only the tip of the listings of such buildings. Please see Category:Government buildings by country, as well as Category:Postal systems by country. Wikipedia is full of such categories. Either delete all of such listings on Wikipedia, or leave them all as is. — Maile (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I randomly looked through around 1/3 of the countries under Category:Post office buildings by country. The articles using this category are about individual post office locations. There three of these articles for Hong Kong. I could not find other list articles for other countries. However, there are list articles for the USPS by state. @Let'srun, I understand your point regarding WP:OSE but there is relevance when considering if a nonprofit governmental agency and with a building that is frequently a community landmark falls under WP:NOTPRICE. A key may be that WP: NOTPRICE says "Listings to be avoided include...". It does not say these are forbidden. That is because sometimes this content is informational and encyclopedic, rather than promotional. For example, articles regularly include a list of all locations of a multi-campus university and schools and churches are sometimes listed in articles about cities or counties. Rublamb (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Post offices are generally a place where business is conducted, and while I get what you are saying I don't think the government association matters. As it stands, this list is only in service of "conducting the business of the topic of the article", and is promotional in nature. If this list is deleted, I would likely nominate those USPS articles next, but don't wish to overwhelm AfD and want to see what kind of consensus is found here first. I also don't those examples you listed as being relevant here. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Hong Kong post offices" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. Ji, Ping; Chen, Kejia (2007). "The Vehicle Routing Problem: The Case of the Hong Kong Postal Service". Transportation Planning and Technology. Vol. 30, no. 2–3. Taylor & Francis. pp. 167–182. doi:10.1080/03081060701390841.

      The article notes: "There are 35 post offices located in different districts in the Hong Kong Island including the GPO, as shown in Figure 1. Their names are listed in Table 1."

      The article notes: "In the last decade alone, the number of post offices has increased from 107 in 1989 to 129 by August 1999. Of them, 35 are located on Hong Kong Island, 41 in Kowloon, and 53 in the New Territories and the outlying islands."

      Table 1. Post offices in Hong Kong Island
      Aberdeen (ABD)
      Hing Fat Street (HFS)
      Sai Ying Pun (SYP)
      Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
      Hing Man Street (HMS)
      Shau Kei Wan (SWN)
      Causeway Bay (CWB)
      Kennedy Town (KTN)
      Sheung Wan (SHW)
      Chai Wan (CHW)
      King's Road (KNG)
      Siu Sai Wan (SSW)
      Cloud View Road (CLV)
      Lei Tung (LTG)
      Stanley (STY)
      General Post Office (GPO)
      Morrison Hill (MHL)
      Tai Koo Shing (TKS)
      Gloucester Road (GLR)
      North Point (NPT)
      Tsat Tsz Mui (TTM)
      Happy Valley (HAV)
      Peak (PEK)
      Wah Fu (WFU)
      Harbour Building (HAR)
      Perkins Road (PKR)
      Wan Chai (WCH)
      Harcourt Road (HCR)
      Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
      Wong Chuk Hang (WKH)
      Heng Fa Chueng (HFC)
      Queen's Road (QRD)
      Wyndham Street (WYN)
      Hennessy Road (HEN)
      Repulse Bay (RPB)
    2. Chow, Ka-kin 周家建; Cheung, Shun-kwong 張順光 (2015). 坐困愁城：日佔香港的大眾生活 [Trapped in a City of Sorrow: Everyday Life in Japanese-Occupied Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. p. 110. ISBN 978-962-04-3775-5. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Google Books.

      The book notes:

      隨著郵政服務恢復運作，個別郵政局陸續重開，繼續為市民提供服務。最早恢復服務的是香港中央郵政局和九龍中央郵政局，其他郵政局亦陸續投入服務。各區郵政局重開日期，詳見下表。

      郵政局名稱 重開日期
      香港中央郵局 1942年1月22日
      九龍中央郵局 1942年1月22日
      灣仔郵政局 1942年2月14日
      上環郵政局 1942年2月14日
      油蔴地郵政局 1942年2月14日
      深水埗郵政局 1942年2月14日
      九龍城郵政局 1942年2月14日
      西營盤郵政局 1942年3月26日
      元朗郵政局 1942年3月26日
      大埔郵政局 1942年3月26日
      赤柱郵政局 1942年5月1日
      九龍塘郵政局 1942年11月15日

      上述多間郵政局，以九龍城郵政局的服務時間最短，主要是受啟德機場擴建工程影響，由於該郵政局位於擴建地段，因此在1942年11月14日關閉，取而代之的是新設立的九龍塘郵政局

      From Google Translate:

      As postal services resumed, individual post offices gradually reopened and continued to provide services to the public. The Hong Kong Central Post Office and Kowloon Central Post Office were the first to resume services, with other post offices gradually returning to service. The reopening dates of post offices in various districts are detailed in the table below.

      Post Office Reopening Date
      Hong Kong Central Post Office 22 January 1942
      Kowloon Central Post Office 22 January 1942
      Wan Chai Post Office 14 February 1942
      Sheung Wan Post Office 14 February 1942
      Yau Ma Tei Post Office 14 February 1942
      Sham Shui Po Post Office 14 February 1942
      Kowloon City Post Office 14 February 1942
      Sai Ying Pun Post Office 26 March 1942
      Yuan Long Post Office 26 March 1942
      Tai Po Post Office 26 March 1942
      Stanley Post Office 1 May 1942
      Kowloon Tong Post Office 15 November 1942

      Of the post offices listed above, Kowloon City Post Office had the shortest service hours, primarily due to the Kai Tak Airport expansion project. As it was located on the expansion site, it closed on 14 November 1942, and was replaced by the newly established Kowloon Tong Post Office.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:NOTPRICE says:

    A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and ___location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

    This list is not being used as "a resource for conducting business". It is being used to document Hong Kong's post offices which have been discussed as a group by academic sources (Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists). The list does not include "product pricing or availability information". The list includes encyclopedic information about each post office such as its English and Chinese name, its ___location, its year of establishment, its year of closing, and a photo. The list is not being used as "a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products". Cunard (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hongkong Post. Majority of these list entries are merely sourced from Hongkong post to prove they exist, which itself violates WP:NOTDIR. There are a few references that would be ideal on the parent article, to use for the small number of list entries that are indeed notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No opposition to a redirect as suggested. Let'srun (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added Hongkong Post as a source because I believe that is better than having no sources. As there are already enough secondary sources to prove notability for a stand-alone list article, it is not really a factor and can be improved later by someone who reads Chinese. However, I would maintain that WP:NOTDIR does not apply because this list goes beyond being a directory, because it includes dates, photographs, and historical details. Rublamb (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I had to really think about this one as it crosses over numerous policies and guidelines. I could say keep under WP:HEY but think more information is required.
  1. WP:SAL: I reviewed the sources that would translate to English and also added other sources, including one of the secondary sources suggested above. (see WP:HEY) @Cunard is correct. There are reliable secondary sources that discuss the post offices of Hong Kong as a group. That is what is needed for a stand-alone list article to meet notability. Also, I am confident that other sources exist to improve this article, but I was not able to fully access them because the source were in Chinese.
  2. WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically applies to simple lists, such as a list of phone numbers, that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Although this article includes addresses, it also includes contextual information that is not directory in nature, such as date of establishment and closure, photographs of the buildings, and historical details about the post offices. Although it would benefit from more information and sources, this is an encyclopedic list rather than a directory entry.
  3. WP:NOTPRICE: This is the issue that gave me the most pause, and I totally see why @Let'srun called for this AfD. The indent of this policy is to prohibit business self-promotion via Wikipedia, specifically stating, "Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article " WP:NOTPRICE suggests this can be achieved by avoiding the inclusion "business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions". Note that this list is items to be "avoided", not items that can never be included. That is because context matters. This article is not promotional in a way that matches the intent of WP:NOTPRICE; there is no discussion of services or products. The only issue could be "store locations". But given that this article includes defunct locations, it is difficult say its intent is to conduct business. As discussed above, a list of businesses is allowed in Wikipedia, provided the intent and content is encyclopedic. If this article was a simple list that just included ___location name, address, hours of operation, and phone number, it would violate WP:NOTPRICE. But since it lacks the "conducting business" content and also includes historic details that are encyclopedic and non-promotional, it does not fail based on WP:NOTPRICE. Rublamb (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty blatant violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cunard's typical disruptive wall-of-text is completely insufficient to demonstrate notability. While the general topic of the postal system in Hong Kong might very well be notable, a directory-like listing of the ___location of each one most certainly is not, and its existence flies in the face of WP:NOT. Most of the entries here are unsourced, further violating WP:NOR. One of the few exceptions, picked at random, that is sourced contains the oh-so-encyclopedic content of " This post office closed during World War II, reopening on 14 February 1942. It moved to a new building in 1986. ". Wow. Let me say that again. WOW. It closed briefly during WWII, and it later moved locations in the '80s. The few other entries with commentary are pretty much the same level. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by Wikipedia's standards. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As part of my review of this AfD, I went through and found sources for each entry, unless noted as citation needed. As per MOS for lists, the citation is included in the text above the table, rather than being repeated over and over again. Regardless of whether or not you find the added info useful, dates of operation and the notes column are not directory information and show a direction of expansion for this article. Rublamb (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are primary, but it's not even all that relevant. The problem is that this is a directory of post office locations and essentially nothing more. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The minuscule amount of encyclopedic information that might actually be here (like singling out the oldest post office) can go in a history section of the main article about the HK postal system. The notability of the system itself, along with its history, does not justify a list like this. And there are no sources that justify the existence of this list. This is WP:COMMONSENSE territory. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there are two scholarly articles that discuss post offices in Hong Kong as a group. That is what is so crazy about this one, it meets notability for a stand-alone list. Rublamb (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most of these are not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep WP:NLIST says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable". Since the grouping has, as noted above by @Cunard and reiterated by @Rublamb, been the subject of multiple independent scholarly discussions, it meets this requirement. No individual notability needs to be shown for each post office unless it has a standalone article. Oblivy (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This list is much more than a simple directory. It contains referenced historical information about many of the post offices in Hong Kong, thus contributing value to the history of postal services in Hong Kong. Individual post offices have historically played an important role in the local society. Most of them do not individually deserve an article, but this collective article is a very good way to collect such information in one place. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments to keep have no basis in policy. The postal system in Hong Kong is notable, obviously. And an article about its history, including the role of specific post offices, is likely viable. But none of the provided sources suggest that the grouping of all post offices is notable over and above the postal service itself. The sources are about the system, not the list: NLIST is not met. The similarity to other categories isn't a reason to keep: quite apart from that being an argument to avoid, we specifically use categories to group notable topics for which lists are not viable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views seem evenly split, albeit not all carrying the same P&G weight. Please focus your arguments on whether the list meets WP:STANDALONE, which has clearer criteria than the sweeping WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources identified by Cunard do indeed demonstrate that the post offices of Hong Kong have been discussed in WP:SIGCOV in way that is not trivial or reflective of a directory. As such it meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. Note that this would not be true of post offices in every city, and this list isn't a precedent for similar lists in other locales. The sourcing would need to be there to justify other lists of this type.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


edit

Emily Hung

edit
Emily Hung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet general or actor notability. No independent reliable sources found on search. --Seawolf35 T--C 18:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/China&oldid=1308067135"