Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Barack Obama visit to China (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China  to Sino-American relations - Delete 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan . Considering the comments on the previous AfD for Barack Obama’s visit, the existing merge tag and comments on the talkpage alongside the comments on this AfD, there is an actionable consensus to merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China into Sino-American relations. Such a merge would need to be done with care as there is too much material in 2009 Barack Obama visit to China to merge wholesale into Sino-American relations. Consideration of what material to be kept should bear Notability (events) and WP:NOTNEWS in mind. I note that all the references in the article are from November 2009, and that much of the content is worded in terms of events that are about to happen – a successful merge would include a source summing up the impact of the visit, as that is unclear from the material in the article as it currently stands, and would cut out the speculation and the future tense (example: “Obama is expected to raise the issue of the Renminbi in his talks with Hu Jintao”). The consensus for 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan is to delete it, and I will go with consensus, though if somebody wishes to make a mention of the visit in Australia–Japan relations and would like to view the content to make such a merge I would be willing to userfy the content for them. I will comment that it is unhelpful to list two unrelated articles in the same AfD, though I will not comment on the possible motives for this as I as	sume good faith on the part of the nominator.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 Barack Obama visit to China and 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan


I see two articles that are similar and of questionable notability. I can't say 100% that it is a keep so a AFD is noted. (The converse is that I can't say it's a 100% delete either). Both articles are very much like news. One editor said that the Rudd visit was merely a stop. There are reliable sources that say the Obama visit was a stop, too, after the Asia Pacific Summit. There were serious issues and a publicity point (whaling issue) for the Rudd visit but it was short. The Obama trip was a little longer but little was accomplished. It could have been notable if Obama publically demanded that the PRC force North Korea to act or demanded that the PRC buy American cars or shame them on human rights but it was an uneventful, non-notable trip. Both border on news but both also have multiple news sources (newspapers report the news, not necessarily notable on an encyclopedic level). The Obama visit was covered in several countries, the Rudd visit covered in at least Australia, Japan, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Singapore, United States. So there is no clear answer to this except that both are very similar articles. JB50000 (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete 50.01% but keep 49.99%. Several people are for delete.  I spent a whole lot of time to write the Rudd article but I don't know.  I do know it is similar to the Obama article but written better and a tiny bit more notable because of the whaling kowtow and now Rudd trying to bring up the fight again after looking weak before. JB50000 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On 2nd thought, maybe merge with 21st century visits of Western politicians to the Far East??? JB50000 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close Once again, a WP:POINT-let's-lump-it-nomination by the same editor who tried it before. Besides, this is nominating for deletion and then saying "maybe not"... so which one is it? Delete? Yea? Nay? *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Per Seb_az86556. I agree, this is a clear WP:POINT violation (see: Talk:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. I'd close it myself, but I'm on the record as writing that the Rudd article should be deleted, so I'm not uninvolved. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. (See my vote below) Unfortunately, I've tried to point out WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POINT to JB50k on multiple occasions. He doesn't seem to want to hear it... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This AFD caught my eye because there are 3 consecutive speedy comments, which one can see very easily even if one is scrolling the page at a very high rate of speed. Furthermore, the AFD covers a new Wikipedia guideline that I participated in discussion.  The speedy comments may be well intentioned but speedy may violating WP:NOTCSD reason 7.
 * Mandsford's merger (below) comments and recentism comments are sensible. This is a difficult question since both articles are about subjects that probably have no historical significance but do meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability based on reliable sources.
 * Recently, I participated in helping some re-writing of WP:EVENT, a new Wikipedia guideline for event notability (full credit should be given to User:The Wordsmith, I basically posed discussion questions and copy edited but did not author the guideline). Both articles meet the guidelines per WP:GEOSCOPE.  Whether the guidelines needs to be re-written is certainly a valid point.  I have discussed even after the guidelines were approved that the guidelines should be more specific in order to be a good roadmap.
 * Based on the notability (events) guidelines, both articles are a Keep . However, I would be more happy if the authors could discuss it among themselves and come up with a merge decision.
 * Based on the tone of the discussion, the involved parties should attempt to work together because I sense a lack of comraderie that is nice to have. I plan to discuss this AFD with the lead author of the notability guideline or other editors before making additional recommendations, if any. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * SuomiFinland, I have no problem whatsoever with your vote. However, I want to point out that I have made attempts to work together with this user, and will continue to do so. I reached out to him after the Hawaii deletion here, and I actually thought we made some progress because it led to the creation of Barack Obama assassination threats, a stronger page that had the backing of consensus. I also made an attempt to reach out to him here, after he started making what I perceived as threats against the China article if his Rudd article were to be deleted. I tried to inform him about WP:ONEEVENT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which other users have also informed him of. So there have been attempts, by me and by others... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't understand WP:EVENT. Passing WP:GEOSCOPE does not give a free pass to an event; all of the criteria need to be considered. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out which will lead to a discussion about the guideline. As far as this AFD, these two articles seem to lack historical significance but there is a possibility that the Rudd visit may mark a turning point on the whaling issue, but this is a very speculative now.  As far as the actual practice of Wikipedia, both articles qualify.  The problem seems to be that the guidelines are a bit too vague which I will be looking into in the near future.  Since there is no consensus just within me (there are conflicting policies, guidelines, and actual practice) I will work to help reduce the problem systemwide but this will take more time than the AFD allows.  For the time being, a no censensus is a default to keep, which isn't bad because these two articles are not the worst of tabloid news but are a little on the news-y side.  My new vote is personally no censensus (I'm talking about me) so it is a keep with suggestions to have the authors strongly consider merging. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After study of the Notability (events) guideline, there is a significant flaw that I am discussing with others who edit that talk page. As a result, I cannot reference that guideline to offer a valid opinion.  According to part of the guideline, both articles pass but according to another conflicting part, both articles fail.  My goal is to ignore this AFD and let it run to whatever course it runs and spend the next few days fixing the guideline so that it doesn't contradict itself. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I would prefer to see articles of this type be about a world leader's entire tour, rather than about the about part of the visit. I'm afraid that the way that the nomination was phrased, it doesn't sound like a request for deletion, and this does seem to be a case of "and while we're at it..."   Needless to say, Wikipedia is so heavy on recentism that anything that Barack Obama does is going to inspire someone to be the first kid on the block to say something about it.  If the man catches a cold, someone will probably write an article called "2010 Barack Obama use of Kleenex".  I think that JB50000 is entirely right in getting us to consider how we treat current events.  Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's difficult to take his AFD seriously given his history. When one of his articles are challenged, he responds by trying to delete articles of a similar nature to make a point: see this, this and this. Further, when the Rudd article started coming under fire, he had started making threats, or at the very least alluding to the fact that he would eventually do this: see this, this and this. Plus, putting aside the fact that this China article has already gone through a recent AFD, there was also an ongoing merger discussion on the talk page. Although nobody had yet voiced any strong support for a merge, a proposal like the one you voiced above about combining it with Obama's entire tour (which I actually think is a good idea) could have, and should have, been discussed there... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge both into appropriate articles on the foreign policy or foreign visits by both people. The both seem to run into problems with WP:EVENT in that the coverage doesn't seem to have much duration and isn't likely to have lasting notability. For an example of a visit to a foreign country that meets these criteria, see 1972 Nixon visit to China. Individual speeches by heads of state (except perhaps certain annual speeches, like State of the Union, or historically notable ones) should be merged, and the same goes for visits to foreign countries that have no persistent coverage. The nomination may be somewhat POINTy, but there's still a reason to merge both. The Wordsmith Communicate 22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are clearly notable events that generated plenty of press coverage, and I wish we could just consider the issue settled. Everyking (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both, with all due deference to all those who have commented above. I think some people are very, very confused about the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site such as (whatsitscalled) Wikinews or whatever. I must say that the majority of respectable news agencies would have been ashamed to inflict upon us something like this.  Really, "A black man, wearing a black coat, in a dark night, holding a black umbrella, walks into a black country".  Wow.  And it has apparently become an Internet catch phrase!!! Yes, really! Wikipedia says so, so it must be true!!!  Oh yes, it's sourced, to be sure. I'm not quarreling with that.  But does it deserve a place in an encyclopedia?  Well, for that matter, does it deserve any mention at all, anywhere, except in these so-called "blogs"??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What level of press coverage, if any, do you feel would be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subjects? Everyking (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the very question, "what level of press coverage ... would be sufficient to demonstrate notability" is wrong. I think people are so much focused on the notion of "coverage in reliable sources" that they forget what this project is ultimately about -- not building an archive of news stories (however well-sourced), but building an encyclopedia.  Please mark the difference.  Wikipedia articles should be sourced from reliable sources, yes.  But that doesn't mean that everything that can be sourced automatically gets a place in the encyclopedia!  That is not the meaning of the term "encyclopedia". The subjects covered here should have real, long-term importance. So it does not matter if 2, or 20, or 200 papers report about some news event -- if it does not have real, long-term significance, it has no place in this encyclopedia.  That's the crux of the matter.  If you disagree, with all respect I think you should be editing Wikinews instdead. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, you feel that no amount of attention from the external world would warrant the inclusion of these articles? Everyking (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No; I think that the mere question of "amount of attention from the external world" has nothing do to with being entitled to inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of subjects that would never be covered in popular press -- various advanced scientific topics -- that definitely need a coverage in an encyclopedia.  Likewise, there are a lot of extremely popular topics (such as speculations about popular singers' sex life, breast size, or whatever) that should never, never have an encyclopedic article (however much is written/blogged/tweeted/whatever about that).  So, the mere fact of "attention from the external world", or absence of same, doesn't mean much as far as building a reliable encyclopedia is concerned.  Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think there's some particular amount of attention from the "external world" beyond which we should automatically have an article about the subject. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, the answer is "yes"&mdash;you feel that the subjects would not be notable even if ten stacks of books were written about them. Well, needless to say, I think it's preposterous to say that a subject cannot be notable no matter how much attention it receives. In order to have some reasonable inclusion standards, we need to be able to identify some level of attention at which we consider an event notable, even if some individual editors think it's a silly or inconsequential topic. Let's determine what is notable, not what should be notable. Everyking (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're twisting his words quite well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think that inclusion in an encyclopedia [I hate the word "notability"] is measured in the number of stacks of books written about the subject. I think that whether it's 1, or 10, or 100, or 1000 stacks of books written about the subject, is not the real question.  As I have said above, some subjects definitely need to be covered in this encyclopedia, even if they are not well-represened in the popular media; but, conversely, some subjects that are represented in the popular literature do not really deserve encyclopedic articles.  That is the main danger of what is called "Recentism"... I must say though that this is getting rather far away from the original question. I should say that I don't think either Obama's 2009 visit to China, or Mr. Rudd's  2009 visit to Japan, are worthy of their own articles, for the simple reason that they are not important enough to be included in a general-purpose encyclopedia.  Don't confuse Wikipedia with an archive of past news stories!   But then, of course, as I must freely confess, I'm not doing political science; it's quite possible that future generations will really need the information about these events; so there's no harm done in retaining them here. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the Speedy Close is obviously not happening, Delete Rudd, Keep Obama to allow merge discussion to continue. I had been in favor of keeping the Rudd decision because I thought JB50k was doing a pretty decent job of improving the article, and that he planned to continue. However, since he is now actually the one nominating it for deletion, that is obviously not the case, so I vote delete. As for Obama, there was already a merge discussion ongoing before this AFD was brought forward, and that, combined with the fact the POINTy-ness and the fact that its already gone through an AFD pretty recently, is why I feel the Obama article shouldn't have been nominated for deletion at all. Let the merge discussion that was already ongoing continue... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  06:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will continue to improve the article if the community decides to keep this article. This addresses the fear of Hunter Kahn. JB50000 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The other "fear" would be that you will continue to pull similar stunts as all the previous AfDs you've launched. Can you address that fear? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China and delete 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. Re the first article: The Obama visit was four days and had some substance, and the article has a (weak) "reactions" section, so an argument for keeping it could be made. In view of the "no consensus" close a month ago, I would not object to a "keep", but I fully acknowledge that it would be absurd to have an article on every state visit by a head of state. Re the second article: Reference #3 ("Rudd to visit Japan en route to Denmark") is a rehash of a press release that essentially says: "Mr Rudd will stop over in Tokyo on Tuesday on his way to the United Nations conference on climate change. In Japan, [he] will meet Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and address a senior business audience on the Australian economy." Such a brief encounter ("stop over") with no discernible outcome means the article fails WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge (both). One of the votes seems to be a personal quarrel because that person was for and then ran into some conflict and is now against.  Both articles are just obscure articles with some online newspaper articles as references. Goldamania (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And this vote seems awful suspicious in itself, since this user hasn't made any votes in the last several months except at this AFD... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  06:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a two-part recommendation. These articles should both be deleted, in my view. However, each may have a bit of notable content (reliably-sourced, of course), that could be valuable in the parent articles. As such, the second part of my recommendation is scour the articles for a bit of content that might be mergeable usable. It is becoming more and more clear to me that this is a POINT-y nomination from an editor that is simply angry that the Rudd article is going to be deleted. As such, I'm changing my recommendation to delete Rudd, merge Obama. Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and as such, not every trip (not even the major ones) that a political leader takes needs an article. Unit  Anode  06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't vote to merge and delete. You can vote to merge and redirect, but not to merge and delete. Everyking (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm recommending is that before the articles are deleted, any useful content should be scraped into a parent article. As the second part of my recommendation, I think the articles should be deleted. My terminology seems like it was perhaps incorrect, so I've fixed that in my recommendation. Unit  Anode  14:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the same as "merge and delete". It loses the history. Everyking (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that -- for the Rudd article particularly -- there's absolutely no net detriment to losing the history of the article. It shouldn't have been written to begin with. And in all honesty, these should be two separate AFDs, as my views on the merits of the Obama article are a bit less strongly-held. But my view remains that what little content might be usable should be simply placed into a parent article. These pages aren't even really all that useful as redirects. Unit  Anode  16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be two separate AFDs. I'm not sure, but is it possible that the administrator who closes this could actually decide, if there is no consensus, that they could be split and two separate AFDs could start over? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the closing admin has the option to close the discussion as "delete X, but merge Y" or even "delete X, restart AFD on Y", if they're particularly convinced by the arguments against one article, but not the other. At that point, the AFD could be restarted for the one, if the latter was the decision. Unit  Anode  21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redoing or relisting the AFD will only prolong drama. As far as the notability guidelines, there's currently a serious contradiction so there is a problem of using that guideline to determine the fate of the articles.  Despite the editors' conflicts just before this AFD was started (including one editor that wants to delete only the Rudd article), I can see that the points for or against both articles are similar so there is some logic to having a joint AFD.  The basic question, keep, merge, or delete boils down to notability (and the notability guidelines are flawed, being repaired, but won't be done in time).  Under the initial part of the guidelines, both have some qualities that start to be notable but fail several important criteria and are, therefore, non-notable.  That points to "Delete both".  As far as keep, only the loosest interpretation of the latter part of the notability (events) guideline can explain a keep decision and, in that case, both should be kept.  Preliminary assessment of the forming consensus of the notability (events) guidelines is that most or all criteria must be satisfied, so this is a delete both.  Some references may be preserved so the deciding administrator should keep a copy of the article for a few days and ask the authoring editors to help merge some facts. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the article is deleted, any merging of the content is out of the question. It's against policy. Content can only be merged if the article histories are preserved. Everyking (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that's what the policy was designed to do. Taken to its extreme, if I started Harry Reid's statements about Obama's race, no one could then include any of the relevant information in the Reid article. That seems rather much. Certainly any notable content (however small) could be scraped into the main Ruud article, while deleting the completely pointless trip article. Otherwise, what's to keep a POINT-y editor from taking your overly strict reading of policy to its extreme? Unit  Anode  01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You could still add the information, but you couldn't simply copy-paste it into the other article. You'd need to write it from scratch. Everyking (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep 2009 Barack Obama visit to China based on great impact and ongoing importance. Move/Merge 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan into Australia-Japan relations based on relative importance. Bearian (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great impact of Obama trip to China. That is laughable.  The Rudd trip made more impact because of the high profile whaling issue and nuclear report.  Unequal treatment of the two is really bad, particularly keeping the least notable (Obama) trip.  If people want to merge some information, I can see.  But to have a really non-notable trip (Obama) and a slightly more notable trip (Rudd) killed is a very political move by Wikipedia. JB50000 (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are saying if there is an article about the Obama trip, there should be an article about the Rudd trip as well. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that neither article meets the criteria for notability but that the Obama article fails it stronger. I am fair because I edited both articles and most of the editing for the Rudd article is mine. JB50000 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you only edited the Obama article twice, but you edited the Rudd one 37 times, which you started and are the primary author for, so that's hardly a balance. Between that, combined with the fact that multiple editors have warned you against lumped together AFDs like this, I'm sure you can probably at least understand why it's hard to assume good faith, right? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for the Obama article and Delete for the Rudd one. Presidential visits, especially US presidents' visit to China, is almost automatically notable, and it gets extensive media coverage. Comparing the Rudd article with it is quite POINTy. Blodance (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The world is more than just the US. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, but given the nature of Sino-American relations, this is not anywhere near a "non-notable event". Blodance (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2010 (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.