Talk:Qifang

Old talk

What happened to this website? Why did it suddenly close? Is it no longer possible to help the good causes?

Notability tag

Yes AfD decided to keep. But the refbombing in the AfD not in a slightest manner improved the referencing of the article: references must be added and verified. So far the article is in a sorry state.

The template specifically says "Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources " - exactly what is badly needed here. --Altenmann >talk 07:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qifang is that Qifang meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. If you disagree with the close of "keep", please discuss with the closer, Cinder painter (talk · contribs). If you cannot come to an agreement with the closer, please take to Wikipedia:Deletion review. It is inappropriate to add {{notability}} to an article that was just kept at AfD. There is no requirement to add sources from the AfD before removing the notability tag. A more appropriate tag would be {{Sources exist}}. Pinging AfD participants: Eastmain (talk · contribs), Hannes Röst (talk · contribs), DCsansei (talk · contribs), Oblivy (talk · contribs), Toadspike (talk · contribs), and TonySt (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Good advice: replaced with "sources exist". --Altenmann >talk 07:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on expanding this based on the sources Cunard found. I wish I could do this for all articles but unfortunately my time is limited. Once I've got all three sources included I'll remove the ugly sources exist banner. Toadspike [Talk] 07:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for working on this! My time is limited too so I cannot always add sources to the articles whose AfDs I participate in. Cunard (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)