Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China

Richard E. Blanchard Sr.

Richard E. Blanchard Sr. (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)

Nominated for so many obvious reasons. Obituary copy not encyclopedic content. Known for only writing one song. No RS. Fails Music and Musician notability. Maineartists (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, China, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Indiana, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment there's a lengthy write up about him and Fill Up My Cup Lord in Terry Lindsey, Stories behind popular songs and hymns (1990) pp.180-182 https://archive.org/details/storiesbehindpop0000terr/page/180/mode/2up?q=blanchard Oblivy (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

"Lengthy" is a bit of an over-statement. It only tells a short "dramatization" of how the song came to be written (2 pages). Once again, he's only known for writing this one song. Nothing more. Suggestion: create an article for the song and redirect subject. Maineartists (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Shi Chunlai

Shi Chunlai (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)

Unsourced and unverified résumé. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and must meet WP:NBIO. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I am not able to verify this information, in the event this can be verified, it is likely that this article can qualify WP:NPOL. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  I can't see anything in the article that suggests he meets NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that the tag for potential NBIO failure has been present since November 2016, in an article created in August 2016. Our tolerance for substandard biographies, already low to start with, has only evaporated in that decade. (No opinion beyond that.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Australia, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Zero coverage found in Gnews and the one source in the article isn't liked, so I can't verify it, but it's only one source regardless. As explained above, tagged for a decade with no improvement, time for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTRESUME and as LibStar states "Ambassadors are not inherently notable". TarnishedPath^talk 06:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage. Tried looking through major Mexican media outlets and nothing pulls. Deleting is the best option here. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 15:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Dream Garden

Dream Garden (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, China, and Companies. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Fanziquan

Fanziquan (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)

Yet to be established notability per WP:GNG. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection to deletion due to lack of notability. I suggest we consider removing the associated article Chuojiao as well. Jōkepedia (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep Sufficient sources in Chinese . Seems like there are quite a lot of results in Google Scholar too , but I'm not able to access any of them. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 11:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Town-level city

Town-level city (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)

As the resaon stated in Special:Redirect/revision/1343274872, this stub article do not contain any correct or verified information. The sole existance of it would be create enough confusion about the actual administrative divisions in China. I don't think there's a point in keeping it. Low power (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Searching for "镇级市" leads to quite a few hits, so I think there is something notable under this title. I archived the first link in Archive.today, which is blacklisted. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  The linked articles either just used the word '镇级市' in title, suggesting some well developed towns should be treated as or promoted to "cities", or discussed the possiblility of a new administrative division called as such. The uses of this word in title alone does not provide any support for keeping this. In other hand, the discussions of a potentially new administrative division shouldn't not be considered as official proposition of such an administrative division, like what stated by Town-level city article. Low power (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  In this case, it is preferable to reframe the article to follow Chinese media when they discuss "镇级市". For example, the first link says (Google Translate), Town-level cities, in simple terms, refer to those towns with strong economic strength, large population size, and urban functions, where the township-level government assumes some county-level or even higher management functions to promote the transformation of towns into cities. I don't see why we cannot have an article about this concept. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Having an article to describe the significant towns with strong economic strength in China would be perfectly fine, but it shouldn't use such a misleading name. A town for example, may be promoted to a county-level city, or promoted to a district of a nearby prefecture-level city; it will never become a "town-level city". Low power (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  While some Chinese news media created the unofficial term '镇级市' to refer these well developed towns in China, this obviously does not designate a new administrative division type. Low power (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect, to County-administered city. I just came up another idea for this article name. While this type of administrative division does not exist in mainland China, an equivalent administrative division type does exists in Taiwan Province, Republic of China; the name 'Town-level city' can be made redirecting to County-administered city, which is actually real. —  Low power (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Meng Cheng (physicist)

Meng Cheng (physicist) (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)

Page on a freshly promoted associate professor at Yale created by an assistant professor also at Yale. His h-factor is 47 which is OK, total citations 6.8K which is slightly low, but he had a significant increase in citations in 2025. Awards are all junior. To me he is right on the border for a pass of WP:NPROF. Because of the COI issue I am sending this to AfD to get more opinions rather than leaving it sitting as unreviewed. Note: the page creator is partially blocked so I don't see draftification as a viable WP:ATD. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Marginal, but a lot better than some of the other Yale articles created by the same person. I think he just about passes. Athel cb (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Connecticut, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Still only an associate professor at Yale, feel like this person is almost notable, but not yet. 6800 citations is nothing to sneeze at, but I don't see a pass at PROF. Perhaps in a few years, just not now. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Weak KeepWeak Delete for now. Off to a good start but it remains to be seen if achievement is maintained. Decent cites with fairly small author lists in a fashionable field. The off-putting feature is the discredited creator of the BLP, but this is hardly the subject's fault. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC).
• Delete I think the citation count is too low for NPROF. David Poland, another associate professor from Yale, was recently deleted and he has 10,700 citations and an h-index of 42 per Google Scholar. Cheng has four papers with more than 200 citations; among them he has 10 coauthors, 8 of whom have Google Scholar profiles, and all have an h-index of at least 40 and at least 6,000 citations. The two with the highest citation counts are 157 (130,000) and 118 (63,000). So, the field is a relatively high-citation one. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – subject meets academic notability criteria through major awards such as the Sloan Research Fellowship and NSF CAREER Award, which are widely recognized indicators under WP:PROF; concerns about citation counts or career stage do not outweigh these, and issues with sourcing or COI editing can be addressed through cleanup rather than deletion. JournalJane (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @JournalJane, please note that both the Sloan and CAREER are starter grants for junior faculty, not major awards such as being elected as a Fellow of a major society. Hence neither qualifies via WP:NPROF#C2. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. I would say it is fair to describe the Sloan Research Fellowship and NSF CAREER Award as early-career honors; however, I believe that alone does not determine how they should be weighed under WP:PROF. While they are awarded at an early stage, they remain competitive and selective within that cohort, and are not granted broadly.

  
  

  Even if there is some disagreement about how these awards fit under specific WP:PROF criteria, they still contribute to an overall picture of academic distinction. Notability is not dependent on a single criterion, and the combination of competitive awards, academic contributions, and independent coverage supports notability under WP:GNG.

  
  

  My recommendation remains that we keep this article, and any remaining concerns about sourcing or potential COI can be addressed through improvement rather than deletion. JournalJane (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete I'm not considering the COI for this. The two awards mentioned don't carry a lot of weight, the subject is still relatively early in their career, citation counts are relatively good. Overall I don't think meets WP:NPROF just yet and is a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)