Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiang Kai-shek Statue


 * 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, coupled with the various rewrites, makes most of this AfD discussion moot. Relist if you feel like it, immediately even. -  Daniel Bryant  00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek Statue

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete - I do not think the topic of statues of Chiang Kai-shek warrants a special article and the article is not supported by any sources. The contents of this should be moved to Chiang Kai-shek. Niohe 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Chiang Kai-shek per above. Stebbins 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Hong Qi Gong points out, the article has been expanded significantally.  There is now worthwhile content, verified by several in-text citations.  I have no particularly strong feelings about the notability of the current event.  A reference to an additional news service (besides BBC) should be added to solidify the notability claim. Stebbins 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding the article Qi Gong. There can no longer be any grounds for deleting this article due to poor content or references.  This article seems at least as notable as many others on Wikipedia. Stebbins 23:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete completely unencyclopedic, no references, appears to create an article out of a common pair of words simply to declare that they are "everywhere". --Ideogram 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. There's currently a political row over these statues.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see what you mean, but we shouldn't turn Wikipedia into a news service. That information can be included in the death and legacy section in the article on Chiang Kai-shek, I think that is where people would look for information about the statues.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not warrant an article itself, and based on creator's edit history, appeared to be intended to be an attack article.  HongQiGong's point is taken, but the issue can be addressed better elsewhere.  --Nlu (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've expanded the article a little bit to provide information on the controversy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This information is moderately interesting, but doesn't deserve its own article. --Ideogram 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... I don't think that's criteria for deletion. And even before the controversy, I would argue that these statues are notable enough for an article, as they are placed all over Taiwan.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So are snakemeat kiosks. You think those warrant an article of their own?  --Nlu (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You feel like nominating Betel nut beauty for deletion? Article's been around since 2003.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about it. --Nlu (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should have articles for George Washington Statue or Mao Tse-tung Poster? --Ideogram 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should have any articles about these statues either, even though I think that statues of Mao Zedong or Lenin were even more pervasive than Chiang statues have ever been. As far as I know, the controversy that this article is about was not spawned by the statues themseleves, but about the legacy of Chiang. No one is discussing the artistic value of the statues, who made them, when they were erected, or provided any statue-specific information.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These statues have been the subject of coverage that is independent of coverage of Chiang Kai-shek. What is the reason grounded in policy that they shouldn't have their own article?  I agree that the article isn't complete because it lacks "statue-specific information", but incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion.  The article was AFD'd 5 minutes after its creation, has been improved significantly over the past 5 days, and is on a topic that meets our notability guideline.  The article does need further improvement, but that cannot occur if it's deleted.  -- Black Falcon 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a trivia.--Jerrypp772000 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge information into Chiang Kai-shek. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It does not merit its own article. Any information about these statues should be in the main Chiang Kaishek article.Zeus1234 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  08:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article has been substantially expanded. There's enough content for this to be an article of its own.  Previous deletion voters may want to re-consider their votes.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reconsidered, and as well-written as it now is, it's still not a sufficient subject for its own article.  --Nlu (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a reference from The China Post and two references from Taipei Times, plus two links in the External links section, one from Taiwan Security Research and one from Manila Times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the expansion and addition of multiple sources (see diff). The statue of Chiang Kai-shek is a subject related to but distinct from the man himself, and it has received published coverage independent of coverage of Chiang Kai-shek.  Thus, it merits a separate article.  -- Black Falcon 03:20, 17 March 2007 (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.