Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China

WP:DSZHWP:DSZH

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|China|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to China. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/China/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board

China

Kunlun Pass

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Kunlun Pass as AtD. Mccapra (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a bunch of sources on Baidu [1] (which isn't itself a reliable source, since it operates similarly to Wikipedia, but does offer useful secondary sources like Wikipedia). Not all of the sources provided there are reliable, but the unreliable ones give inklings of reliable sources. For instance, one source is a forum post, but notes that "The renowned writer Zhu Qianhua provides a detailed account of Kunlun Pass in his notebook, * Lingnan Field Notes".

Other sources like [2] [3] [4] help bolster the notability. Katzrockso (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of Chinese language sources. Here are a few:

昆仑关战役述 (Commentary on the Battle of Kunlun Pass) https://www.krzzjn.com/show-346-74421.html which seems to be a Party document but discusses it at length
1939 Battle of Kunlun Pass: The most brutal siege battle in the history of the Sino-Japanese War, Modern Express (现代快报) (2018) https://m.krzzjn.com/show-346-74424.html
农何茵. 「论南宁市昆仑关景区的保护及其开发规划」. 沿海企业与科技 (On the Protection and Development Plan of Kunlun Pass Scenic Area in Nanning Cit) Coastal Enterprise Science and Technology) 8 (2007): 115–117 talks about its importance for preservation has a particularly nice summary：

南宁市昆仑关景区位于南宁市东北部,地处兴宁区与宾阳县交界,距离南宁市区56公里、宾阳县城30.5公里。景区由昆仑山(抵宝山和暗探山)、领兵山、之堪山、大象山和草帽山围合而成,面积约70公顷。景区内的昆仑关是我国著名的关隘,有“一夫当关,万夫莫开”之势,是历代兵家必争之地,举世闻名的古今战场,其中,尤以1939年的昆仑关战役为著。昆仑关大捷后,国民党在昆仑关营建了陆军第五军昆仑关战役阵亡将士墓园、纪念塔、牌坊、碑亭、中村正雄墓等建筑物。建筑物上篆刻有蒋介石、杜聿明、李宗仁、何应钦、白崇禧等15名国民党政要人物的题词和题联手迹。1989 年, 昆仑关列为邕宁县文物保护单位; 1994 年, 昆仑关战役遗址列为自治区级文物保护单位。

The Kunlun Pass Scenic Area in Nanning City is located in the northeast of Nanning City, at the junction of Xingning District and Binyang County, 56 kilometers from downtown Nanning and 30.5 kilometers from Binyang County. The scenic area is surrounded by Kunlun Mountain (Dibao Mountain and Antan Mountain), Lingbing Mountain, Zhikan Mountain, Daxiang Mountain and Caomao Mountain, covering an area of approximately 70 hectares. Kunlun Pass, located within the scenic area, is a famous pass in my country, known for its impregnability and strategic importance. It has been a battleground throughout history, renowned for its numerous victories, most notably the Battle of Kunlun Pass in 1939. Following the victory at Kunlun Pass, the Kuomintang (KMT) constructed a cemetery for the fallen soldiers of the Fifth Army in the Battle of Kunlun Pass, along with a memorial tower, a memorial archway, a stele pavilion, and the tomb of Masao Nakamura. These structures bear inscriptions and couplets by 15 prominent KMT figures, including Chiang Kai-shek, Du Yuming, Li Zongren, He Yingqin, and Bai Chongxi. In 1989, Kunlun Pass was listed as a cultural relic protection unit of Yongning County; in 1994, the Kunlun Pass Battle Site was listed as a regional-level cultural relic protection unit.

Oblivy (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the nominator, I think the sources presented above are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I would withdraw but another editor has voted for a redirect. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jiefang Subdistrict, Zhoushan

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

Fails WP: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 under WP:GEOLAND but has to pass WP: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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a source confirming it was a real subdistrict; albert now dissolved. Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was a subdistrict 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 per WP:GEOLAND. Sun8908 _Talk 06:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeijingDance/LDTX

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG, lack of independent, verifiable sources The Kora Person (come say hi!) 10:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and China. The Kora Person (come say hi!) 10:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australia China Business Council

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all available sources seem to be connected to the council. The Kora Person (come say hi!) 09:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. The Kora Person (come say hi!) 09:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Australia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Amigao (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 15 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Mei River. Left guide (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jianying Memorial Bridge

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mei River as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom if a source can be added. BlookyNapsta (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4 as non-notable and unsourced since 2006. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cathaysianism

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

Fails WP: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" or Zhu Xia zhuyi (諸夏主義).

A general search of "Cathaysianism" returns no reliable 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and China. Yue ✉ 01:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 諸夏主義 is also listed in the Japanese Wikipedia. Even if this is the flawed ideology of a pseudo-historian, it is quite well-known. ProgramT (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid counter argument. You claim the concept is "well-known", but that is not backed up by the article's current lack of reliable sourcing and the concept's general absence in reliable sourcing online in both English and Chinese. Can you provide at least three reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject? Yue ✉ 20:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s absolutely NOT an ”other stuff exists” argument! If Cathaysianism is inded a "fringe theory by a pseudo-historian (Liu Zhongjing)” then Rename Liu Zhongjing (https://thechinaproject.com/tag/liu-zhongjing/ contains plenty of links to coverage about him; he has a zh. Wp) might seem appropriate as he has no page yet on tis Wp; or Redirect to Cantonese nationalism#Chinese parties. ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"X is also at Y" is definitely an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Also, I don't know if it's because I'm not a subscriber, but The China Project link you provided only returns one article about Liu and "Auntology". Maybe Liu has enough coverage for his own article, but this article isn't a biographical article focused on him so a move doesn't make sense. Yue🌙 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - no. Just read the link you yourself provide; point 2 -yes. if, as you yourself say, this is the fringe theory of a pseudo-historian and nothing more, then renaming and refocusing on its notable author makes perfect sense. ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://thechinaproject.com/2019/03/13/chinas-intellectual-dark-web-and-its-most-active-fanatic/ ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree on our readings of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Creating an article for Liu Zhongjing is a separate discussion on his standalone notability, but in regard to moving and repurposing the article as an alternative to deletion: With the current content in this article, I think only the paragraphs cited to sources 3 and 5 are suitable for an article on Liu as they are secondary sources that cover him in-depth. However, they are also transcripts of interviews of Liu, so not exactly the best sources in establishing notability. The other sources are self-published by Liu or blogs, so there isn't (yet) anything substantial to build from. I.e. notability for Liu hasn't been established by the sources given in this article, so I don't think a move and rescope is appropriate at this moment. Yue🌙 (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NEO. Aneirinn (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO. - Amigao (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ProgramT. Might be a flawed idea, but that does not mean we simply delete it for fun. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iljhgtn and ProgramT. If its pseudo and notable, debunk it. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – To be clear, my rationale has nothing to do with the validity of the concept because that's not part of deletion policy. Wikipedia has articles on all kinds of political theories and even conspiracy theories, of course.

The problem is the article at present has poor sourcing; notability cannot be established for a concept by exclusively citing the author's own words, which is the current state of the article. I attempted to remedy this by looking for reliable sources to replace the existing sources, but I could not find any online in English or Chinese, and of course I also checked the other Wikipedia versions for suitable references.

As in the initial rationale, five of the nine sources cited are primary sources and the other four secondary sources don't even mention "Cathaysianism" or Zhu Xia zhuyi (諸夏主義). Since this discussion was started nobody has added reliable sources about the topic to the article or to this discussion; only one new source has been mentioned and it's about the author, not his concept. Yue🌙 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No-GNG passing sources have been provided. ProgramT argument is WP:OTHERLANGS. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnated soul boy

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

This article is purely WP:OR and lacks any WP:RS establishing notability. Amigao (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A click through Google Scholar gives us our pick of sources [5]. I'm satisfied that the term is real. The question is whether it merits an article on its own, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great point regarding WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This term would probably be more appropriate for Wiktionary. - Amigao (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term appears to just mean "tulku". There's no such term in Tibetan Buddhism. Both "soul" and "boy" within the term are wrong. (Not all tulku's are male and the tulku will become an adult. There isn't "soul" in Tibetan Buddhism.) The sources are just using this English translation from Chinese sources.Meerta (talk) 11:31, 19 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 suggest Tulku but I'm not sure if thats accurate. Jumpytoo Talk 18:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about Tulku#Lineage_of_the_Dalai_Lamas? We'd have to add some text explaining the term, maybe a sentence or two about its origins, but that's no less than it merits. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that such a redirect would make more sense. - Amigao (talk) 20:34, 12 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: [6], [7], [8]. Based on these academic sources, the topic appears to be significant. KhantWiki (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems a reasonably notable aspect of Tibetan Buddhism. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term is not used within Tibetan Buddhism. It originates from the Chinese government. There is no such term in Tibetan Buddhism, and its not equivalent to "tulku". (They do not remain boys and indeed not all of them are male.) There is no belief in a soul in Tibetan Buddhism, and there is no term "living Buddha". There is no "sitting-in-the-bed" ceremony. The article used as a citation for a supposed equivalant Tibetan term in that article suggests that this is a mistranslation of "enthronement". The tulku doesn't become more of a tulku after the ceremony than before, as the article seems to suggest, in fact it misses the point of enthronement altogether. This is because it is written from a Chinese political point of view. The only sources are to a Chinese political ordnance. It is one of a number of articles like this.Meerta (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The citations for this are clearly not independent WP:BESTSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Communist Party Member

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

From my removed prod: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which are Wikipedia: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 are Wikipedia:UNRELIABLE."

If independent and reliable sources are found, then these can be kept and have those reworked into the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Asia, and China. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Chinese Communist Party Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jumpytoo Talk 23:03, 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. Jumpytoo Talk 00:36, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter per WP:GNG. In addition to the sources already cited in the article, which include a scholarly source that discusses the awards extensively, many other sources can be found with online searches for "三八红旗手". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chinese Communist Party per WP:ATD. Fails WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article doesn't appear to meet WP:SIGCOV because it's either not independent, not directly about the award but an award announcement (which is not the same thing), or trivial/perfunctory.4meter4 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 13 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]

Hong Kong related deletions

Actuarial Society of Hong Kong

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of secondary sources—all content is self-serving WP:PROMO nonsense except for a sentence or so about the existence of regulations and ordinances regarding actuaries in Hong Kong. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Hong Kong. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interim Housing

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

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. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (no redirect) to Public housing in Hong Kong. There's academic coverage with published works like 'State-Engineered Temporary Urbanism and Multi-Dimensional Adaptability of the Transitional Housing Scheme in Hong Kong' as well as passing mentions and statistical counts in other works that could probably evidence a subsection in that article, but there's no need for a standalone article. Athanelar (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- to either Transitional housing or Public housing in Hong Kong tried finding more sources to support the article's concept, look 35 and 36 for consideration.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:46, 12 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]

Comment there is a related RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_6#Interim_housing, it would be helpful if the closer could drop a note on that RfD once this is closed. Rusalkii (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment new rfd link. Happy Editing -- IAm Chaos 23:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan related deletions

Jiaban de Tianshi

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vivian Hsu#Discography: Fails WP:NALBUM. No SIGCOV in RS. ~2025-40615-44 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]