Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Barack Obama visit to China


 * 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   no consensus. NW ( Talk ) 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Barack Obama visit to China

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a diary. Wikipedia is not news. This trip is just an ordinary trip that can be covered in other articles. Otherwise we would have the 2009 Barack Obama visit to New York, 2009 Barack Obama visit to the bathroom (severe diarrhea incident), 2009 Barack Obama meeting #5 with Senator ---. President Obama did not make a historic trip to China where he got them to join as a 51th state or like Nixon's trip. If President Obama visited North Korea and kissed their leader and declared Peace in Our Time, this would be different and should be an article. Goldamania (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Obama's visit has even more historical significance than the Nixon's visit in many ways, though it is kind of "undercurrent ". Only in 1944, the then President Roosevelt send a telegram to Chiang Kai-shek :Now, when you have not yet placed General Stilwell in command of all forces in China, :President Roosevelt Message to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. How arrogant, and adament, can Roosevelt be.
 * Delete. Original comments hold, resembles a travel journal or news story. Should be pruned and subsumed by an existing article. ... Historical significance cannot yet be determined. History doesn't go that fast, gentlemen. :) When the history has gelled on this, then revisit (if necessary). Kace7 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And in 2009, 60 plus years later(in the long Chinese history, 60 years amounts to a few seconds), what did Obama say: China appreciated President Obama's repeated reiteration on the adherence to the one-China policy, the abidance of the three Sino-U.S. Joint Communiqués and his respect for China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity on the Taiwan issue and other matters.:Hu Jintao, Obama Meet the Press. One has to be blind to not see the historical significance. Gone were the days when western leaders coming to China to "order" the Chinese around, buddy. Arilang   talk  02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Quote:If President Obama visited North Korea and kissed their leader and declared Peace in Our Time, this would be different and should be an article. Unquote. Exactly how different is Communist China from North Korea? Not much, really, (1) both are ruled by one, and one only, communist party. (2) both treat USA as enemy NO.1 (3) both governments are still covered in deep secrete. In the political sense, China and North Korea have little differences.  Arilang   talk  20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no secondary sources have been written for this trip yet. We have no way of knowing if it will be historically significant, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are news reports, which are, incidentally, boring. This article is journalism, which violates WP:NOT. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep

I have collected a number of Chinese and western main stream media websites articles, and all these articles are talking about the historical significant of the visit, so no secondary sources have been written for this trip yet statement is simply not true, the fact is these secondary sources opinions have not yet being added onto the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China. And we all know that the Obama China visit will go down history, somehow, and I wonder why we have these newly registered users all in a hurry trying to delete it?


 * [http://www.nownews.com/2009/11/26/142-2538097.htm 奧巴馬靠攏中國，馬英九大陸政策緊貼？

(2009/11/26 00:28)] 奧巴馬在中國留下的問題較他回答的更多 ]
 * 洛杉磯時報社論:奧巴馬承認中國實力是正確之舉
 * 網民：奧巴馬在中共的舞臺上表演
 * 奧巴馬上海座談 凸顯中國緊密控制
 * [http://news.singtao.ca/calgary/2009-11-20/world1258704568d2162098.html
 * Chinese Censors Block Obama's Call to Free the Web
 * Obama Wades Into Internet Censorship in China Address
 * Is President Obama Abandoning Taiwan?

The above three users sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be making comment on this article. Arilang   talk  03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have they contributed anythings
 * User: Goldamania
 * User:Glittering Pillars
 * User:Kace7
 * That is incorrect. All three of the editors have other contributions unrelated to this article and its AfD, as can be seen from looking at their contribution pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although has proposed 6 articles for deletion and !voted delete on 4 other AfD discussions in an editing history of just 43 edits.  Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but there seesm to be something going on here. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Maybe User:Glittering Pillars was using Wikipedia before as an unregistered anonymous user but registered an account because they wanted to participate in AfD. The question is whether their arguments in favor of deletion are good arguments, not how long they have been registered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy, strong keep - per WP:OUTCOMES; WP:N: this is one of those obviously notable Presidential trips. FWIW, about the newbies: Goldmania has been active only since September and has no real talk or user pages; Glittering Pillars has no user or talk pages and only registered November 30; Kace7 has no user or talk pages, but has been active on and off since February 2008. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your keep arguments don't really trump WP:NOT. "Outcomes" is just an informational page, and "Notability" is a guideline. "Not" is policy. Glittering Pillars (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, for a newbie, you are awfully well informed. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, for a law teacher, your argument to keep is awfully conclusory. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:N I am not sure why this particular trip, especially one part, deserves its own wikipeida article.  If this trip represents such a fundamental change in Sino-American relations, it should merged with that article.  Otherwise, there is no reason to think Obama said and did exactly what previous presidents since the Nixon administration have said and done while visiting China.  The more controlled aspects of the visit could just as easily be chalked up to personality and style differences between Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin.  Does Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor also reflect a difference in policy, or just a difference in style?  Does that episode deserve its own page as well?  Does this episode reflect a fundamental change like the A New Beginning speech in Cairo did?  XinJeisan (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep: It was a very notable first trip by President Obama, the most powerful man on the planet to China, a growing economic superpower who is becoming increasingly important to US domestic and foreign policy.--&#91;&#91;User: Duffy2032&#124;Duffy2032&#93;&#93; (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep will clearly be an historical event, and thus passes NOT NEWS, As someone said above, NOT is a policy,. It needs to be interpreted with some judgment.  some ofthe delete arguments amount to IDIDNTTHINKMUCHOFHISVISIT.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG writes "*Keep will clearly be an historical event".  If so, this article can be written later when it actually becomes a historical event.  The word "will" shows that it is not yet a historical event.
 * Notability is forever. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Who are we to decide what this event "will" be? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT, this's just like yesterday news. Qajar (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not an encyclopedic article. Just another trip report.  We don't have trip reports for the United Nations head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Obamo (talk • contribs) 00:37, December 1, 2009
 * Comment: If all is lost, merge with Sino-American relations. There is no reason that the entire article should be shredded out of existence. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much agree. Kace7 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment:I agree not every trip Obama makes should have its own article, but deleting it shouldnt be an option either. I say we should have a conglomerate article about Obama's foreign trips as president with this being one of the sections. Obviously it will be a work in progress.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere - Sino-American relations, East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, etc. I disagree with Bearian that this is "one of those obviously notable Presidential trips". The 1972 Nixon visit to China, yes - even books have been written on that one. But I don't see what makes this one more notable than the 2005 George W. Bush visit to China or the 1998 Bill Clinton visit to China, or than the 2009 Barack Obama visit to the United Kingdom. Presidential visits are important but also routine, and few are of that lasting an importance to warrant separate articles. That they are well-covered in the media is also no automatic reason for an article: everything US Presidents do is covered in depth by the dozens of reporters who follow him around everywhere; verifiability does not always amount to notability. - Biruitorul Talk 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep* Very significant, many other less visits have articles on wikipedia ,why not this one?Teeninvestor (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely false. Aside from 1972 Nixon visit to China, Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia, Ngô Đình Diệm presidential visit to the United States and Pope John Paul II 1983 visit to Nicaragua (all of which have been shown to be significant by history, as opposed to the short burst of news coverage typical for all official actions of US Presidents), can you name any other individual visits abroad by heads of state that have articles here? - Biruitorul Talk 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. See Category:China – United States relations. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try this again. Other than those four (and this one), can you name any other individual visits abroad by heads of state that have articles here? - Biruitorul Talk 17:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete* This was not a momentous event, it was one of many visits Obama made. The text can always be merged with US-China foreign policy pages. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge the important stuff to Sino-American relations or some such; this was a pretty important event and attracted lots of attention. On the other hand, it doesn't need its own standalone article and some things (like the timeline) are not important; what matters is the diplomatic and policy implications/consequences. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but can merge a few sentences into other articles. Just another presidential trip, albeit by a very popular man. Inmate 5317 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - People who propose deletions need to understand that most of these visits do not have immediate impact until years later. The Nixon visit was not declared "important" or "unimportant" the next day. Why should this one be?  Whether Clinton's visit has an article or not is irrelevant to the discussion.  It just means the editors haven't made one yet.  Benjwong (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nixon's visit wasn't declared important the next day, it was declared so before he even arrived. This is from the Feb 21, 1972 issue of Time Magazine: "A year ago, the very idea that Nixon, or any other U.S. Chief Executive, would visit China on a good-will mission would have seemed absurd. But not only the mountain goddess is startled these days by how the world has changed." Obama's trip to Beijing was routine and expected.  Nor were these plans (from the same Time Magazine article). "The ceremonial portions of the seven-day visit will be televised live by satellite to a worldwide audience that may match or exceed the estimated 600 million who saw man's first steps on the moon."  I think it is difficult to compare Obama's or Clinton's visit to China, or, really, any American president's visit to China, or any foreign country, to Nixon's visit to China in 1972 XinJeisan (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was a historic trip.  Per Arilang1234's comments, it has received extensive,non-trivial media coverage worldwide.  I don't agree that this can be viewed as a routine or non-notable trip.  In the entire history of these two countries, there have been only seven trips made by sitting U.S. Presidents to China.  See this history of such trips Given the rarity of such trips and the preeminent role played by these two countries in the global economy, such a visit is inherently notable, IMO.  Cbl62 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I agree that every state visit by a sitting President doesn't warrant an article. We don't need separate articles for every U.S. Presidential trip.  In this case, it's the combination of (a) the rarity of U.S. Presidential visits to China (7 in history) and (b) the huge global influence of these two nations, that persuades me that a separate article is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is against keeping, then I would at a minimum suggest the creation of an article on United States presidential visits to China. Similar articles exist for United States presidential visits to Mexico, United States presidential visits to Canada, and United States presidential visits to Africa. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could move the page to United States presidential visits to China and then expand the other sections. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Every visit like this receives extensive media coverage. For example, look at the Dalai Lama's trip to the US a couple months ago; there was all sorts of uproar about it (specifically, about who did and did not chat with him). This amount of coverage for US-related diplomatics is not that unusual. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are also the following lists already existant:List of international trips made by the President of the United States, which has a summary of the trip to China,List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama, which also has a summary of the trip to China. There is also United States presidential visits to United Kingdom. I'm not so much of a deletionist to think all these should be deleted. But, if you are going to make a new article, maybe United States Presidential Visits to Asia would be better. Although, I think all these presidental visit lists are quite well covered in the Lists of international trips article. XinJeisan (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per XinJeisan, above; emphasis on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing that this trip did differently than any other presidential visit since Nixon: reiterate the status quo. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the original comments. Even if this is an historic trip, my guess is that it will be relegated to footnotes or a cursory mention in history. Nothing great or path-breaking has been conducted. The US policy was more or less know before the trip itself.--Anish (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This and similar comments make a good point: the trip didn't really, as far as we know, produce any important policy stances or changes. The closest thing is maybe that Barack Obama tried to emphasize more cooperation and less "America should be afraid of China", but who was really afraid anyway, other than Bush wingnuts? All in all, the trip was more rhetoric than change&mdash;the rhetoric does evidence that the administration's attitude towards the PRC is different than Bush's was, but the trip itself isn't what produced that change. And most of the rhetoric was fairly conservative ("We think you're doing a great job! try to take care of human rights a little better but overall just a great job!"). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Anish's comments set the bar too high. Under our established standards, an event doesn't have to be a "path-breaking" event.  To the contrary, it simply has to be "notable."  Anish appears to concede it's "an historic trip," and that ought to be enough.  Requiring it to be a "great or path-breaking" historic event (Anish's proposed standard) inserts far too much subjectivity into the process, in my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously notable, major event given lots of press coverage across the world. Everyking (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This visit yielded no significant outcome or significant effect on the US-China relation, so I think that it's just like another visit and fails WP:EVENT. However, if someone write the article 2009 Barack Obama visits to Asia, I think we can merge this article into it.--AM (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added a "Reactions" section, so the article has a certain political and historical context, and isn't just a diary. I think people are too busy shouting at each other rather than contributing content. Can't we at least see how good the article can get before we decide on whether to delete it? Lampman (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Look to me it doesn't have any significant change in the relationship between two countries. 207.233.70.79 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.