Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China as an emerging superpower (fourth 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 delete all. discounting several votes with invalid reasoning, policy is key Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

China as an emerging superpower

 * Also India as an emerging superpower, European Union as an emerging superpower and Emerging superpowers
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Potential Superpowers—China was nominated for deletion as part of a group nomination, also including Potential Superpowers—India and Potential Superpowers - European Union on 2006-03-10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus", although keeping the articles on China and the EU was supported by several editors.  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India.
 * People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-25. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower.
 * China as an emerging superpower was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-31. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/China as an emerging superpower.
 * People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-25. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower.
 * China as an emerging superpower was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-31. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/China as an emerging superpower.

Short and simple: these articles are original research, are speculative, and have no clear definition against which their claims can be weighed. I urge deletion.

The first inherent problem with the articles lies in their namespace. Each article discusses the countries in the context of becoming the next "superpower". Superpower is a political science term usually used to talk about the two powers in a bipolar system (USA & USSR in Cold War), or the one power in a unipolar system (USA today). In essence, a superpower is defined by the polarity of the international system--that is, a calculation of relative power--not by the absolute material, political, economic, of cultural factors it possesses. These articles catalog the absolute material etc. factors possessed by these countries, but provide no definition for what constitutes a superpower, or discuss when and how China/India/EU might finally become considered a superpower. Moreover, if the international system does not move from unipolarity to bipolarity, but instead moves from unipolarity to multipolarity (if China, India, and EU all rise concurrently, for example) than no state will be considered a superpower, because the term isn't used for the polar powers in a multipolar system ("great power" is generally used). The namespace, right off the bat, makes a rather large assumption about how the world is going to turn out. It's speculative at best, but really it's simply misleading. Superpowers are not superpowers because of absolute capabilities, but because of relative capabilities. One could write an entire article on why China will be the next superpower based solely on American decline, with no facts about China at all, simply because superpower status is relative.

Furthermore, relative power is defined by political scientists in myriad ways--most academics and politicians define power using different relevant capabilities (e.g. most use military, some include population, some include political system, some include economic, some include manufacturing output, some include urbanization, some include energy use, some include territory size, some include global reach capabilities, some include sway over international opinion, some include cultural influence, etc. etc. etc.). Measuring some of those factors leads one to different conclusions about relative power than measuring other factors. If the articles stick only to military and economic factors, then they are presenting a view biased towards Realist IR theory; the they use economics, political system, and international influence, then they are presenting a view biased toward Liberal IR theory; if they present the view that "superpower" status is a socially constructed term, then they are biased toward Constructivist IR theory, etc. Even if they present research on all the possible factors, they are still advancing original research.

This leads me to the second, and more serious, problem with these articles, is that they are original research. WP:OR specifically states that the following is to be considered original research: What we see in this collection of articles is not a discussion of various published sources and their views on China/India/EU's potential to become a superpower. Few if any authors are directly mentioned in the text at all. What we see are a number of sections asserting something about China/India/EU -- it's big, wealthy, growing, has social problems, has economic problems, etc. Mostly primary sources are cited. But since there is no standard for what constitutes a superpower other than relative power, there is no way to cite primary sources without the articles becoming an argument-advancing synthesis.
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

If the articles only cited and discussed secondary sources (i.e. experts discussing their theory or criterion about China/India/EU's rise), the article would still be unencyclopedic. No other Wikipedia article would be allowed to have a and  on them, knowing full well that the expected event may not come to pass for at least 15-20 years, if not 50 years. Especially an article about social or political issues, which are subject to the most extreme and unpredictable vagaries and vicissitudes of nearly any subject covered by Wikipedia. But these articles, by their very nature, would need such tags, because even the secondary-source authors are engaging in speculation about a future event that may or may not come to pass.

Let's do a thought experiment: if Wikipedia had been invented back in the 1980's, there would have been a strong temptation to write an article on Japan as an emerging superpower. We look back on this as silly now (evidenced clearly by no attempt ever having been made to start one for Japan in the current series of emerging superpower articles). But in the 1980's Japan was kicking the USA's butt--huge growth, special cultural advantages, high technology, etc. There were scads of articles coming out predicting the Japanese century ahead, and Japan as the next superpower competitor for the United States. Fast forward to today--if that article was still around, what would we do with it? Japan clearly hasn't lived up to the predictions from the 1980s. We would most likely delete the article once it became clear that Japan wasn't going to live up to the hype. But what would the criteria for deletion be? We could still have such an article, listing all the demographic, economic, cultural, military advantages that Japan has today, just like the articles we currently have on China/India/EU. Arguably Japan has better qualifications currently than India does, if you measure by certain criteria (economy) and not others (population). There would be no structural difference between a Japan article and the articles we currently have.

This is why the concept of an article on XYZ country as an emerging superpower is inherently flawed. The articles are based on absolute capabilities rather than relative systemic capabilities, they assume a bipolar rather than a multipolar world to come, they synthesize primary sources to build a case not attributed to reputable authors, they will remain speculative and future-predicting for at least 15-20 years, and in light of historical predictions of superpower status they clearly aren't encyclopedic. Wikipedia articles should not be written about predictions of future events, it's that simple, no matter how many primary sources are used to back up one side or the other side of the case.

Delete and salvage raw info to relevant articles on China/India/EU demographics, military, economy, culture, etc. &mdash;Perceval 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all per the longest nomination I've ever read. If any properly-sourced material in these articles is lacking from the parent articles, it would be appropriate to merge it back, but only if the merge avoids the NPOV problem inherent in the term "emerging superpower".  Barno 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Wikipedia is not the place for position papers, which these are.  Whether they are well-written is irrelevant; they are not encyclopedia articles.  --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Any evidence toward them can be incorporated into superpower. Mzmadmike 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to include evidence in the superpower article, but I think it would be reasonable to include short citations noting authors and experts that have discussed these as potential superpowers.&mdash;Perceval 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all per Barno. I was winded by the time I got done reading all the nomination. Fundamentaldan 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Those articles read like editors threw a bunch of numbers at the wall to see what would stick. It also seems easier to just put a sentence in the country articles saying that "Country is getting more powerful as times goes blah blah" than have entire articles of rambling text with no coherence. Opinions from other people shouldn't be presented as fact. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No comment (yet) about the articles here, but I know quite a couple of very prominent researchers back in the 80's who got tenure by doing research claiming that Japan would be the next superpower. Silly now, but under WP:SCI (proposed, I know) it would count as a superceded theory. Unless we argue that IR is not a science. So the point is really, is the idea, as silly as it might be, supported by prominent advocates with a track record of widely cited publications (or a noteworthy public response)? Will comment more after I looked at the articles. ~ trialsanderrors 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think one can say that political scientists are working on a "china as a superpower" theory. A theory in political science would be more like liberal international relations theory or democratic peace theory.  Talking about China/India/EU's rise is more like conjecture, or prediction based upon application of theory, rather than a distinct theory in itself.&mdash;Perceval 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to get into a battle over nomenclature here, but that would be a hypothesis. The difference between conjecture and (empirical) theory is mostly the quality of evidence provided in support of the claim. Closer to the matter at hand, this is quite excellent material, but sadly completely out of place on Wikipedia, unless we can find authorities who support the conjecture/theory/whatever. What are the inclusion requirements at Wikisource Wikinews? ~ trialsanderrors 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that a great deal of work went into assembling all the data. That's why I urge merging relevant data in relevant articles (China's economic info into Economy of China, etc).  There are certainly authors, both academic and popular, who predict the rise of these countries.  Those predictions belong in the articles about those authors and books.  Collecting them together under the nomenclature of "emerging superpower" is misleading and original research.  But, even if we found those articles and authors, the subject matter would still be unsuitable for a wikipedia article.  Classification of a country as a superpower or even as a great power is a holistic, relative, and subjective affair.  We have articles about economic miracles--but those are quantifiable and based on objective, absolute measures of material facts.  "Superpower" status is not nearly the same--it depends not only on the country in question, but upon all the other major countries in the international system.  Like I said above, one could write an article about the rise of China to superpower status written entirely in terms of U.S. decline, with nothing at all about China in the whole article--because superpower status is relative.  Moreover, different criteria are relevant to different authors: some are realist, some are liberal, some are constructivist, some are marxist--all pick different factors reflecting international power--thus, the whole project is subjective in a way that Chile's economic miracle is not.  The article would remain speculation and predictive of a future event for at least a decade if not several.  I know of no other Wikipedia articles given that kind of leeway in discussing speculation.  (AFAIK: wikinews deals with breaking events, not long term historical processes).&mdash;Perceval 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those predictions belong in the articles about those authors and books. — Not necessarily, if the authors can be linked in some form so discussion of their work in context makes sense. If they are just a bunch of isolated scholars all working on the same problem linkage might be original research, but as soon as you have, say, an edited book or a colloquium "Will China be the next superpower?" there is good reason to discuss the research in one article. Btw, you should also correct your nomination. You can't merge and delete per GFDL. It might actually be that move into project space is the best short-term solution. ~ trialsanderrors 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With all respect, there are edited books and colloquiums on all manner of speculative subjects. Cruise the think tanks in DC or academic fora and you'll see meetings discussing nearly anything.  This does not mean that Wikipedia ought to have articles on every speculative subject discussed, even if there's an edited volume published about it.  The articles themselves do not use secondary sources, do not cite authors and experts, and do not present each author and expert's opinion seperately--it's all merged together, synthesized into one large argument-advancing piece, with no attribution.  Just look at the talk pages to see what a honeypot these articles are for nationalists and racists adding completely unfounded material to these articles.  There is no way to salvage these namespaces based on verifiable, non-speculative sources that solves the problem of the inherent assumptions made in the namespace alone, much less the article text.&mdash;Perceval 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the content of the article. The talk page is really irrelevant, that's not what the public sees. On the issue about whether there is a strong subfield of IR or even IB that discusses those issues, that's really an empirical question (You might want to join us at WT:SCI about those meta-questions). I'm just trying to probe what to do with an article called "Next superpower X" and under which conditions it can be a feasible WP article. ~ trialsanderrors 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question, but inherently a presupposition. It preassummes that the world will become bipolar instead of multipolar.  So it's an article not only on what country is likely to gain relative to all others, such that only it and another country have enough of the relevant capabilities within the international system to be considered superpowers (a subjective standard, as political scientists will admit), but it's also an article that bases its speculation upon another speculation about how the world will turn out (i.e. that the world will change from unipolarity, and that it will go to bipolarity not multipolarity).  While articles on speculation are explicitly disallowed (WP:NOT, point #3), articles on speculation based upon a speculative, unspoken presupposition are clearly out of bounds.  That being said, there are numerous articles discussing structure in the international system, by realists, liberals, and marxists alike.  They discuss historical structure, current structure, and how structure might change in the future, or whether structure is even a worthwhile way to think about international relations.  They further discuss what criteria ought to be used in determining a great power (not surprisingly they almost all disagree), and whether the number of poles really has much of a determinant effect on the behavior of states at all.  Because such classifications (great power, superpower) are based heavily on these types of assumptions (relevant criteria, necessary share of capabilities, relevance of structure, IR theory school, etc), it's a very very bad idea to label specific countries unless you are explicit about who exactly is labelling them (e.g. Kenneth Waltz) and why (e.g. Waltz notes that country X had a big army relative to other countries in those years).  Trying to compare countries as great powers or potential superpowers is a guaranteed disaster, because you'll be mixing authors, theories, criteria, and there will be no standard upon which you could cross-compare the countries.  In sum, it ought to be avoided.&mdash;Perceval 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Reset indent) Well, here is a hypothetical example that would be acceptable under our rules:
 * The question whether China can be the next superpower has attracted significant academic and popular attention. A superpower is defined as ... In his book "China, the Superpower of the 21st Century", Prof. Prefect writes "China has the human and natural resources to become the dominant player in Asia within 100 years, second only to the U.S.A. in global influence". This conjecture is critized by Prof. Hallmonitor who writes: "Despite its size and human capital, China is at least 50 years away from creating the necessary political and social institutions to allow a rise in regional prominence", etc., etc.
 * That of course has nothing to do with the article right now, but a perfectly acceptable article for Wikipedia, if the sources exist. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting example. More likely it would feature "Prof. Prefect defines a superpower/bipolarity XYZ", "In his book he talks about how current trends relate to the criteria for superpower status: example 1,2,3,4...", "Prof. Beeblebrox defines a superpower/bipolarity ABC", "In her book she talks about these other current trends and how they relate to the criteria for superpower status."  One structural problem with such an article is that there are very few books or papers written specifically against such a point, i.e. there are no journal articles with the title "Why China Won't Be a Superpower", even though a number of people do not believe China will be the next superpower.  As such, the article would most assuredly be one-sided, and run into potential NPOV problems.  Finally, there would need to be some way to resolve the namespace problem, such that it doesn't presuppose a speculative outcome.&mdash;Perceval 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename all. They are excellent articles, it just the use of the words "emerging" and "superpower" that are controversial.  Rename to International power of Foo.  That way we could potentially have one for every country without have to categorise them as a "superpower" or "middle power", etc. Kevlar67 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles don't strictly discuss international power. They discuss domestic factors, such as economic strength and social issues.  Moreover, is there a definition for what factor constitutes international power and what doesn't?&mdash;Perceval 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and repurpose articles... maybe? Without having more time to thoroughly review these articles, I have to say they appear at least on the surface to be well written and generally well referenced, at least for purposes of verifying individual facts. I agree with the nominator that the overall theme of whether or not a country will become a "superpower" is original research, though, and quite speculative.  While I do think these articles need to be altered to remove the speculative properties, I also suspect there is quite a bit of useful, verifiable information about these countries within these articles.  And since the articles are quite large, merging that information directly into the main article on each country might be problematic.  I'm guessing that the ideal solution would be to rename and repurpose the articles so that they discuss various significant geopolitical and economic factors about the country, and link it as a subarticle to the country's main article.  Also, if possible, locate a few more secondary references that contain similar analysis to whatever original analysis is contained in the articles so that those bits of potential OR can be backed up by published analysis saying similar things.


 * Worst case, I would suggest deleting the articles but copying and pasting them into user space as draft articles. That way all the text of these articles can be preserved and modified as desired, and hopefully the above issues about OR and author speculation can be properly addressed and a modified set of articles without those problems can be speculated. Dugwiki 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't advise transferring the information to the main article for each country. Each of these articles breaks down evidence into military, economic, political, social spheres.  Thus, I think that raw data might be transferred to the Military of China, Economy of China, Politics of China, Demographics of China, Culture of China articles.  But the argumentative synthesis of the raw data into "reasons why China might be a superpower someday" must go.&mdash;Perceval 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter how renamed and repurposed, they are still position papers, and position players don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to project space The articles have two problems:
 * 1) The refactoring into pro and con a conjecture, with no evidence that the conjecture has attracted significant attention in academic or popular discourse. I.e., who are the prominent adherents of the various positions on the issue and what are their positions?
 * 2) They are functional duplicates of various content forks of the country articles. Functional meaning they're probably not identical (didn't check) but overlap in scope.
 * So to mine the additional material that's not yet in those content forks the articles here should be moved into project space. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Another thing to note is that the articles don't provide why those various factors will help or hinder China's predicted superpower status. The article outright throws a bunch of numbers to readers without any real context. While things like "While China runs a trade deficit with India, it has trade surpluses with other South Asian economies (including Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan)." fit right into forks of China, they don't help me see the relevance of this to being a future superpower. The article is literally a collection of factoids that various editors deem important to future development, but without the glue to hold it together. Good thing, I suppose, since that glue would be original research. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Tough call in many ways, though. There is something to be written about "China as an emerging superpower" -- i.e., who says it is? who says it isn't? who says (like the nominator) that the concept is too fuzzy to mean anything? what do people say about it? There is a lot of cruft in the articles. But deletion is not a solution to problems one resolves by editing! Please drop me a line on talk if you think I'm missing something. Sdedeo (tips) 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why you strongly favor keeping it when you acknowledge that there are a lot of unclear factors. The problem is not necessarily with content--most of which is cited.  The problem is whether such an article can avoid being inherently original research, when based on a speculation about a long-off future event, and with a built-in assumption that the world will become bipolar rather than multipolar (an event that has little or nothing to do with the absolute material capabilities of one country, but is related to the relative capabilities of all countries in the international system).  In this sense, the article not only speculates about the future power of one country, but in the namespace alone makes an assumption about the power capabilities of all states 15+ years into the future.&mdash;Perceval 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said on my talk page, I think the solution here is to tack an OR tag on and comb out the sludge. There's no question that there can be (and should be!) an article discussing the different answers people have given to whether or not China's going to be a "superpower." As long as we report on speculation, it's fine. If you have a namespace problem, AfD is not the way to go. It's a "strong" keep because these are AfDs on very highly developed articles worked on by many (and I think a fourth nomination for AfD is excessive.) Sdedeo (tips) 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I put these articles up for AFD because I didn't think an OR tag would be enough--the articles are defective in their fundamental premise. I appreciate that they are highly developed, and the raw data used can be used elsewhere profitably, but the premise of the article is one that cannot avoid OR and is inherently based on speculative presuppositions.  There's a reason why these articles keep getting nominated for AFD.&mdash;Perceval 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The terms are widely used in mainstream works. Baka man  03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is not whether or not the term is used widely. I don't think anyone disputes that there are a number of news stories discussing these countries and their tremendous growth.  The problem is whether an article based entirely on speculation of a distant future event ought to be included in Wikipedia.  Checking WP:NOT, point #3, indicates that articles about distant predicted events are not acceptable, even if they are widely used terms.&mdash;Perceval 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the exact point you reference: "we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." I think this is the crux here: are there enough essays or credible research on the question of China's superpower status? (I believe the answer is trivially "yes" -- am I mistaken?) Sdedeo (tips) 05:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are essays trying to predict how the structure of the international system will change, certainly. But they are essentially speculation--speculation based on theory and trends, but speculation nonetheless.  Point #3 states that extrapolation and speculation are disallowed, and that's what this article is: extrapolating current trends to speculate on China's rise to superpower status.  Point #1 states that future events are permissible "only ... if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."  Certainly, China's rise would be notable, but it is not at all certain to take place.  Moreover, that it rises specifically to become a superpower (in a bipolar system) rather than as one of many great powers (in a multipolar system) is even less certain to take place.&mdash;Perceval 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. P#3 explicitly says that we should have articles covering speculation about future events if the speculation is credible and notable. Period. (?) Sdedeo (tips) 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. But the articles are not about credible research.  They are mostly primary source material about China's GDP, military size, demographics or China's social problems, etc.  I have a valuable discussion above with trialsanderrors regarding what an article based on credible research might look like.  However, I still maintain that such an article would be inherently misleading because of the built-in assumptions about systemic polarity (that the world will become bipolar instead of multipolar).  Further, they are speculation about an event proposed to happen at the very least a decade into the future.  Point #1 says that an article about the "2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research."  The same would apply to China because of the long time span regarding its potential rise.&mdash;Perceval 08:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a bunch of complaints that you have confused. One is that the page as is has lots of OR. Solution: comb out OR or add OR tag. The next is that you think that people who ask if China is going to be a superpower are wrong to do so. Solution: find credible sources that say same and create "criticising the question" section. Finally, you repeat the claim that P#3 does not apply and P#1 does, which we've already discussed. Sdedeo (tips) 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are not my arguments. I argue that the concept of the page itself leads to OR: all the facts are well cited, but the facts are synthesized (chosen, placed together, justified) to make an original point.  The facts are not there to back up a published expert's claim, they are there because the editors chose those particular factors as important.  That is original research.  You can't comb out OR when the whole concept of the page is OR.  Second, I don't think it's wrong to ask if China will be a superpower.  What I'm saying is that China becoming a superpower is not dependent on China--superpower status is based on relative not absolute power.  So listing a bunch of facts about China is meaningless, no matter how well cited, because China as a superpower is dependent on two things: its power relative to every other powerful state in the international system, and whether the system changes from unipolarity to bipolarity or multipolarity.  Neither of these things can be examined by listing the attributes or issues facing China.  Finally, point #3 says that we can have articles about credible research that is predictive, but these essays are not about credible research, they are research.  Where are there any authors discussed who put forward research on China as a superpower, not simply speculation?  Are any china-superpower theorists given a section or even named in the text?  No there aren't.  The only people named are those cited for specific facts used to support the broader points being made by the editors.&mdash;Perceval 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to misunderstand you. I think we agree that an article along the lines of "Summary of discussion of 'China as superpower' from notable sources" is something wikipedia should have? Sdedeo (tips) 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to say "should". For instance, articles on books or authors who put forth such theories are certainly viable, as long as those articles describe and summarize the argument rather than finding facts to buttress it. If we eventually amass a collection of such individual articles, I would not be against a survey article that overviews all of the individual articles and provides links back to them. But I don't think we should set out with the object of a "china as a superpower" article.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all merge useful information. I thin that we have a conception of 'superpower' which has different aspects such as economy, military, etc.  There is nothing wrong with economy of China citing a reference to China's impending superpower status.  The problem is we don't know the final outcome and calling it "emerging superpower" is drawing conclusions about an unfinished game.  The United States as an emerging superpower is already an article... we just call it History of the United States (1918–1945).  If China/Indian/EU is considered a superpower someday then the time of their emergence will get a history article.  Until then we will cover the growth in economic, etc. articles. As a secondary resort I would accept rename all to International power of foo because it at least does not attempt to predict the future.  gren グレン 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with rename all is that there is no standard by which to judge "international power". Realists judge military capabilities and economic production, Liberals judge regime type, economic development, weight within international institutions, Marxists judge on a core-periphery analysis of the state and by the character of its economic system, etc.  Which capabilities are the relevant ones for international power in that case--do you choose one theory (an bias the article) or choose all theories (and make a bizarre synthesis of all the theories together)?  Moreover, which capabilities are international capabilities and which are domestic capabilities?  These articles discuss a lot of things that are essentially domestic --internal social instability, national culture, etc.  International power of Foo would be just as much original research as these articles.  I wholeheartedly agree with your point about USA as emerging superpower == history of the united states (1918–1945).  Spot on!&mdash;Perceval 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough, but then what do we do with the article superpower when the reader gets to the end of 1991 and suddenly they are supposed to not notice that we don't mention any recent history? Somehow we have to convey the geopolitical history of the last 15 years.  Suggestions are welcome. Kevlar67 05:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of the superpower article is OR as well. But, the superpower article should address: what a superpower is, what academic or popular definitions of it are, which states have been superpowers (only two: USA and USSR, post-1991 only the USA).  No need to include long-winded speculation about what country the next superpower will be.  It would not be out of bounds to mention various states that have been considered possible challengers to the United States, with appropriate citations, but I would stop short of marshalling evidence on behalf of those nations.  That would cross the line into OR.&mdash;Perceval 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep or Rename. The worst article out of the lot is the China one, which mentions heaps of things without relating them to the superpower status at all. But can anyone disagree with these things:
 * Wikipedia seeks to provide information
 * These rises are currently very well documented in both media and academia
 * These articles do not predict that a country is going to be a superpower, they are articles on the SPECULATION which is CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE which relates to the countries and their superpower status
 * The articles are very well sources, the problems are only that the sources are used to say they are going to become a superpower when the sources may have nothing to do with it. Leading to Original Research.
 * These articles nevertheless present good information about a subject in a convenient location for readers.
 * Thus these articles should stay in Wikipedia.

Under those conditions, I don't think it's worth deleting these articles. That's the view carried in past 3 AFDs as well. The first few votes talked a lot about Perceval's nomination. I urge you to read the articles, there are POV problems, but the article is both thorough and extremely well sourced, more than numerous other articles on Wikipedia. It would be a shame to remove the articles...a real shame.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobleeagle, it's not about the articles being sourced. Anyone can see that every fact presented has a source, sometimes multiple.  The problem is the inherent assumption contained in the article's premise, and the synthesis of these primary sources which advances an argument.  1) There is no commonly accepted criteria for superpower status - so listing all the material and cultural factors for a country's rise is meaningless, and there is no clear point at which China could be said to be a superpower. 2) Superpower is a label applied to bipolar or unipolar powers, thus it is not a measure of absolute capabilites, but of relative capabilities within the international system.  Thus, presenting a list of factors in one country's rise has nothing to do with whether it will or will not become a superpower.  What matters is the relative growth and decline of all powers within the international system, and which capabilities/factors are considered relevant to the measure of a country's power.  The article does not and cannot provide that relative context, and provides no criteria on what factors are relevant to a state's power (a subject upon which there is wide disagreement within IR theorists, as you should know). 3) WP:NOT does not allow articles speculating on events that might possibly occur in several decades maybe, based on extrapolation of current trends.  It's original research, plain and simple.  4) The primary source data can easily be used on the relevant country subpages (Culture in China, Demographics in China, Economy in China, etc), so none of that research will be lost. 5) The articles are not about current theories on China's rise--no authors or their theories are cited by name, no sections are devoted to individual authors and their criteria or definitions.  These articles present primary data synthesized to argue one side or the other, and the primary data is assembled not based on published theories but on the editors' whims.&mdash;Perceval 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or rename This article covers a referenced and notable intilectual concept. This article should stay. Perhaps it should be renamed and given a less speculative title. The article is relatively well-referenced and provides the reader with information on China's current world-power status.  Signature brendel  06:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete All These kind of speculative articles are very un-encyclopedic and annoying.  Just because they source other people who state their predictions of the future doesn't make this a real topic; an encyclopedia doesn't have a list of oracular speculations by different people.  Who goes to an encyclopedia searching for an article on "_____ as an emerging superpower" anyway?   Besides,  the articles are always at risk of selective referencing that emphasizes a certain view.  The POV emphasized is in support of the country becoming a superpower.  These articles are like POV forks except that there are no articles for the other POV.  They are inherently dedicated to a POV.  And honestly, could anyone here get away with an article about China as a Doomed Nation or India as a Failing Failure? Of course, those titles are exaggerating the concept, but my point is that people would find the other half of the POV fork unacceptable, and so this half should also be unacceptable.  Even if there were opposing POV articles, the obvious action would be to integrate these into a neutral whole, assuming that the "oracle" problem is resolved.  In sum, these speculative compendiums of carefully selected trends and quotes have no place in an encyclopedia that aims to be a neutral repository of verifiable facts taken from reliable sources.  They are antithetical to the encyclopedia's goals.  The Behnam 07:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and there's no bright line, preventing anyone from writing an article about any country. Search for Iran as an emerging superpower and you get results.  Brazil too.  Someone, somewhere is willing to write about it--and then we'll have a multiplication of these articles on nearly every big country, because every nationalist wants to have their country represented in Wikipedia as the next emerging superpower.  They'll fill it up with all the primary source information on GDP growth and military power that the current articles on China/India/EU have.  But there remains no standard upon which we can say yes to India but no to Brazil.  Moreover, where does it stop?  Next we'll have Uzbekistan as an emerging regional power, Argentina as an emerging regional power, Indonesia as an emerging regional power, and on.  This is the problem with speculative articles--there's no way to say no once you've opened up the floodgates to articles about what might possibly happen decades from now maybe.&mdash;Perceval 08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot Wikipedia as emerging superpower. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In all it's deletion debates, the same point has been raised. Where does it stop, note that in a year of this article being present, the others are not. The issue is of notability, while China and India have notable speculation on its rise. Iran does not. If you search Iran as an emerging superpower, you get results, out of which the first result is about Iran, and the rest are about China and India as emerging superpowers. So those google results are misleading.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look beyond only three results, there are plenty about Iran, so the results are not misleading. The 1st one is definitely about Iran, the second and third link to the Wikipedia articles up for deletion for China and India as emerging superpowers.  Obviously, it is not the way that the phrase is usually used in the sources, which of course questions the naming again.  But do not mislead others by saying that the results are misleading; plenty of those after the 1st three address Iran power.  The Behnam 03:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty more about India and China in that search than there are about Iran.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more of a mix. The point is that there are enough talking about Iran seeking to become superpower to make an article, but that wouldn't be good because it simply extends the editorials of others, and that is not what the encyclopedia is about.  The Behnam 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Nobleeagle and BrendelSignature, except that I do not support renaming the articles. The article names are good, and most of the suggestions thus far have not been. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all the articles attract propagandists and boosterism, they are unnecessary, merge any uselful information.Paul111 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lot's of articles attract propagandists. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is how neutrality is maintained, as it is in large portions of theser articles, with these propagandists floating around the pages.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep all some of the best written articles I've come across. While they do attract propagandists and boosterism they are exceedingly helpful regarding the subject matter. Freedom skies 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They may be helpful and well-cited and well-written, but that doesn't bear on the problems of namespace and original research.&mdash;Perceval 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep useful articles. --64.230.126.222 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - possible canvassing by User:Nobleeagle; see ,,,,,,.   Some of these users appear to be people that may be expected to give a "keep" response based upon their views regarding power in international relations, or because of the specific countries involved.  I cannot help but notice that these a few of these users did indeed show up and give "keep" votes.  The Behnam 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These are users that have worked with the articles, I don't at all support Perceval's deletion of pages without informing the main editors to the pages. They are also members of WikiProject Power in international relations. To not one user did I tell them what to vote, I told them that it was up for deletion, to inform them. Indeed, one user I contacted told me on my talk page that "something has to be done with the articles, because at the moment they are like essays". I'm sorry if you take my actions wrongly, but I feel I have done nothing wrong by telling involved users about the article. I thought it was general Wikiquette to tell the largest contributors that the article they have spent time on is up for deletion.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors contacted, I must state that I think the accusation of canvassing is unfair. These users are simply the interested parties, and no advice was given (at least not to me—and I've heard no mention of any such advice). CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If those are significant contributors, it's in fact considered good etiquette to informa them neutrally about the discussion. The same can be done with prior AfD participants. See WP:AFD, WP:CANVASS and the talk page discussion there. ~ trialsanderrors 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to raise the possibility for comment, not actually accuse Nobleeagle in any "for sure" way. The wording of all of the notifications was neutral of course, but it can still be votestacking if it is clear that a certain user will vote a certain way just upon any notification of the debate.  I don't think all of the cases were this clear, but some of them are arguable, such as those users who were active in WikiProject_Power_in_international_relations.  The most blatant example is of that Rumpelstiltskin character; his strong pro-Indian and pro-Hindu POV warring on a variety of articles leaves no doubt that he would vote "keep" here.  In any case, its good that I received some feedback on the plausibility of the "canvassing" idea, but no, I didn't mean to actually accuse you at this point.  Sorry if it seemed that way.  The Behnam 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This material should be merged into relevant super topics like "Economy of China", "Foreign Relations of China" et al, sans the original research, which a lot of the article currently consists of. I was originally going to say weak keep or rename, but after reading the article a bit more carefully and really thinking about it, I changed my mind.  My basic problem is this...an encyclopedia is a catalog of "things that exist".  "Things" can be concepts, ideas, phyiscal objects...blah blah.  Wikipedia is the same, except the medium allows it to track changes in those "things".  That's where it get dangerous.  Some things do not change over a relevant time scale, like the size and composition of a planet, and on the other side, some things change rapidly.  The very title of the article, and most notably, the word "emerging", suggests the latter.  Look at it this way, if this were the title of a book or an article, its corresponding encyclopedia entry would be to describe the book, not to present the underlying material to the reader that is engineered to advance that books argument.  That is what this article represents...a thinly veiled attempt to advance an argument based on a vast collection of sources taken together.  Sounds like an essay, not an encyclopedia article.  Most of the content here is well organized, and possibly useful.  However taken together, with the title, and the content, and the way that it is presented, it is clearly original research by synthesis.--IRelayer 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not deny that the articles need changes and possible chopping down, they use primary sources too often and would be better if every source referred to the nation's actual superpower emergence. but I would like to draw an analogy. There is an article called Effects of global warming, which details future effects that may or may not occur relating to global warming. Much of the article is well written and is attibuted to particular people, which is what this article needs. However, the concept is the same: Effects of global warming is speculation over a future event that may or may not occur, but the speculation itself is a very current event. Similarly, emerging superpower hypotheses are speculation over a future event, but the speculation itself is a very current event. The articles tend not to say that "The Chinese military will become better than the United States by 21 May 2014", it says stuff about the recent military rise that is currently troubling the United States. Both articles are well sourced, both possess the same premise. The emerging superpower concept is similar to the future global warming impacts concept, if the latter belongs to Wikipedia, so does the former. Thus the concerns don't relate to the concept and their validity (unless Perceval wishes to nominate Effects of global warming for deletion), the concerns relate to the OR and Primary Source use which is presented in the article. To fix these things, you use a TALK PAGE, not an AFD, Perceval hasn't even bothered touching the talk page and telling everyone his concerns so that the articles can be helped. If you say delete because of the concept of the emerging superpower doesn't belong to Wikipedia, then what are your views on the global warming hypotheses on Wikipedia, if you say delete because the article is OR, then that's not the way to go, you instead should tag the article and place messages on talk pages.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobleeagle, I respect your opinion on this and other deletion candidates, but I don't believe your comparison to Effects of global warming is valid. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia that mainly concern future events.  Video games and movies with an impending future release dates are good examples, but some of the more prominent ones are: Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, Eschatology, and Ultimate fate of the universe.  These articles have one thing in common in terms of structure: they are all primarily summaries of documented, sourced theories relating to a number of topics.  The difference between these (and the global warming article) and the article under discussion is that the latter is a collection of facts (figures, statistics...primary sources) combined in such a way to present a unified theory OF ITS OWN that does not appear anywhere in the source material.  In other words, the articles I mentioned all present documented theoretical information relating to a central topic whereas this article presents a collection of seperate facts as one theory, the theory that China is "emerging" as a superpower. If the article instead presented theories from political scientists, historians, and such, it would be acceptable, but as it stands, it is problematic and original research.--IRelayer 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, on my talk page Nobleeagle and I discussed the comparison and my position was as follows: ":Effects of global warming is not a perfect article, and it's not free from original research. However, it is leagues better than the emerging superpowers series. #1, it is not inherently predicated upon an assumption: the superpowers series assumes that polarity will shift from unipolarity to bipolarity, while it is just as plausible that polarity will shift from unipolarity to multipolarity (in which case there would be no superpowers, but simply a set of great powers). #2, it discusses individual authors' theories one by one and attributes those theories directly in the text. Take a look at the first major section: Effects_of_global_warming. Each paragraph begins with the particular theorist/paper/book/etc and discusses their particular contention. The article, for the most part, does not marshal primary source data chosen by wikipedians and assembled by wikipedians as evidence, unlike the superpower articles. #3, the relevant indicators chosen by scientists are scientific, and thus not nearly as arbitrary. Indicators chosen in political science are far more arbitrary, and rely principally upon the author's theoretical school (realism, liberalism, marxism, constructivism). While there is an objective measurement of global temperature and climate change, there is no objective measurement of what constitutes a superpower much less what constitutes state power within the international system."&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Possible New Format - I have experimented with a possible new format to the articles which is here for India and here for China. I'm not sure about the EU article, because I'm not one that considers the EU to be a functioning state to the capacity in which it can be branded with such titles. But please don't vote delete simply because the EU one is a dodgy concept in itself. If the article survives deletion I urge everyone to help me make them more encylopaedic by expanding the articles with a new format which is not so dogged by OR.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep all--68.196.36.226 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above vote was by an IP address with two edits.--IRelayer 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, it could simply be the ISP uses dynamic IPs, like mine does 88.104.185.62 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you see the first edit, you will see that it is actually the IP address of User:Dangerous-Boy, who has said "keep all" below so I suggest this "vote" be removed. Then again the admin closing this debate can realise that the the "keep all" (without further comments) adds absolutely nothing to the discussion because Wikipedia is not a democracy, where voting decides. GizzaChat  &#169; 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * keep all--D-Boy 09:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Rename--The information in this page is highly usefull and should not be deleted or salvaged since this article gathers all relevant information into one place ergo salvaging it would merely make it harder to access. Renaming seems to be the best solution since it would seem to be a perfect compromise between keeping the information and taking in the views of the deleteists (is that term correct?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antonine (talk • contribs).
 * Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, keep, keep (strong, speedy keep) - Sourced by a billion and one news articles, books etc; BBC news is forever running "in-depth" sections of its site to China as an emerging superpower, on BBC News 24, it ran precicely this article for a whole WEEK of programmes Michael Howard came out about an EU superpower during an election campaign, for gawds sake! How one can argue with such compelling media support is beyond me. Plus, this is the fourth time the articles has been attempted to be deleted. Granted, they are controversial, but what isn't on Wikipedia.... I mean I suggest you look RIGHT NOW at the BBC site:

Number one most emailed story on the BBC News website:

Will India make the breakthrough [as a Superpower]? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6280027.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/map.stm

They're running a whole WEEK of special reports on it and we're thinking of deleting it! I mean, come on! Get a grip people...

Oh yeah, while you're there, look at their "in depth" special reports on:

India Rising http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2007/india_rising/default.stm Emerging Giants http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2006/emerging_giants/default.stm and various bits and bobs in Inside Europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2003/inside_europe/default.stm

We would understand if you haven't seen these articles and want to change your vote now; but you're embarassing yourself if you continue to suggest you're right and mass media is wrong. 88.104.185.62 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah and Wikipedia articles should not be written about predictions of future events, it's that simple, no matter how many primary sources are used to back up one side or the other side of the case? Will you be nominating the Global Warming article for deletion? Or the 2008 Presidential race article? Or the Death article? Or the First Contact article. Verifiable speculation on future events does have a place in an encyclopaedia. 88.104.185.62 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * None of those articles is a position paper (except possibly for global warming); these are. --Nlu (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to try deleting "Global Warming", since it is essentially a position paper backed up by a bunch of scientists. Perhaps the science allegedly involved prevents the deletion from happening.  Science tends to be whatever description of reality that is agreed upon by considering the known information, and is usually the conclusion that every logical scientist will reach if they look at the evidence.  On the other hand, the same cannot be said of "emerging superpower" opinion pieces.  People usually have to put this forward, and then select specific evidence to back it up.  It is a POV; others could select different evidence to show that the country is going down the tubes.  There isn't a 'scientific' way to make these assertions.  And while I could perhaps make, as previously mentioned, an India as a Failing Failure article, or have certain Pakistani people make it for me, this wouldn't be tolerated because it would attempt to defame and insult that country, and imply that the country is headed nowhere.  And yet there is the opposite article, that serves to puff up a country based on a few editorials on the internet! Hopefully, these halves-of-a-POV fork will be deleted to stop this unscientific silliness.  The Behnam 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * However, clearly your "half of a POV" statement crumbles under the fact great pains have been taken to include opposing opinions - both POV's are clearly present and no conclusion is reached, to the fury of the nationalists and the detractors alike (apart from in, possibly, the title. Gramatically it does not invite a conclusion but describes an argument. Practically, it seems to. Perhaps it should argued for it to be changed to perhaps "Probablity of China pertaining superpower status" or something similarly long-winded, but that does not require an AfD). The reader is, throughout, invited to make their own judgements on the basis of the facts and the opinions of the media, but only the information is provided; a la an encylopaedia. 88.104.185.62 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the token criticism added is editorial. It communicates that the country will be a superpower once it addresses a few certain problems.  Besides, the "emerging" idea is favored here; the criticisms added simply signify why the country is not yet a superpower.  These types of articles are unworkable, un-encyclopedia opionion pieces.  The Behnam 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. So pointing out the problems the country faces in becoming a superpower is supporting the view that it will become one? The problems signified are the hurdles that must be overcome. I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Criticising China's human rights record, India's troubles with Pakistan and the EU's fractured nature is certainly not something I'd have in the article if I was trying to make it one sided!! 88.104.185.62 00:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you didn't really convince me that it didn't make sense. GOTO my original argument.  The Behnam 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really a problem of POV, it's a problem of OR. It could be perfectly NPOV to a fault, but it doesn't matter if it's OR.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep all Let's write articles and let's not delete them.-- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact, let's all just write articles about our own theories! Seriously, Wikipedia is not a collection of essays or personal knowledge. Deleting original research is part and parcel of creating an open encyclopedia.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete them all, OR.--Aldux 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Rubbish. Clearly the BBC think otherwise. 88.104.185.62 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note that very few people would agree that the current format the articles take is the correct format. I have thought of new formats in User:Nobleeagle/China as an emerging superpower/New and [[User:Nobleeagle/India as an emerging superpower/New that may be moved into the wikispace once this deletion debate is over so that more people can edit the articles and the articles become more like Effects of global warming. A deletion debate should be about deleting the article because the entire concept is not right, but as the concept is similar to Effects of global warming, it only stands that people want to delete this article because the content needs fixing, which can be done through talk page messages and collaborations instead of deletions.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's sad for Wikipedia that it's been allowed to go this far, and be defeated, four times. There should be a limit on the amount of times things are allowed to be put up for deletion. 88.104.185.62 01:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 88.104.185.62, the article clearly violates WP:OR as written and presented. All of your points, while valid for general information purposes, are irrelevant to Wikipedia.  To address your points specifically, the fact that the BBC thinks the concept of "China as an emerging superpower" is important does not necessarily mean that the concept as written and presented is worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia.  The BBC is a news agency, not an encyclopedia, and more importantly, BBC reporters are allowed to editorialize and provide opinions, whereas Wikipedia articles are supposed to satisfy WP:NPOV, among other criteria for inclusion.  Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT, if you have not already done so, as you seem to be a new user and all of your edits thus far relate to this topic and you are not using an account.--IRelayer 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. As the nominator says, these articles are original research. Of course, Wikipedia could (and should) cite secondary sources that say that China, India, et al. are emerging superpowers (e.g., "according to the political scientist John Q. Public, China's rapidly growing economy and military power place it among the ranks of emerging superpowers...") but it would be more effective to do so in articles such as History of the People's Republic of China rather than articles of the type "X as an emerging superpower" which are almost inherently going to be OR. It seems like there's an NPOV problem here as well, in that these articles seem to be written to prove that country X, Y, or Z is an emerging superpower, rather than reporting the range of opinion found in reliable secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Akhilleus. Rama's arrow  04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all I was observing the discussion for awhile and refrained for commenting since I hadn't made my mind up. But IRelayer and Akhilleus have nailed the problem with these articles so I have changed my stance from the last nomination. The information isn't necessarily bad, it is just not in the right place. GizzaChat  &#169; 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. The articles were the original brainwave of filibustering horoscope-toting narcissists. They read like a kindergarten wishlist. However Keep China as an emerging superpower and European Union as an emerging superpower as the evidence from international sources is multiplying year on year. Anwar 12:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: So wouldn't it be better to term your vote as Keep EU and China only. Also note that the European Union as an emerging superpower was set to be renamed by some because if one were to count the European Union as a fully functioning unit, then it is not emerging and some analysts actually refer to it as a superpower, while others don't believe it is united. The EU's case as an emerging superpower isn't so and isn't multiplying year on year, basically it needs to fully integrate and unite and then it would be as strong as the US. I won't comment further on your vote but it came as no surprise, you're back to the voting stage :).  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all expecially keep European Union as an emerging superpower --giandrea 18:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator makes a very strong case for deletion, but the articles speak for themselves. They are well-organized, well-sourced, adorned with photos - and their neutrality is preserved by the section "Factors against X becoming a superpower."  Others have made arguments as to why these articles are not original research.  I just can't see deleting such wonderful work: I learned many things from reading the articles while evaluating this case. YechielMan 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The same praises can be given to, for example, Hillary Clinton's autobiography. That would not make it appropriate for Wikipedia.  --Nlu (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nlu, and keep in mind that the debate is not over the number of pictures, the quality of the prose, the number of sources, the organization, or even the neutrality. It's over original research and presupposed futures and speculation. It may be wonderful OR but it's still OR.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all, these articles are crystal ball telling, not wiki worthy Visionc
 * Delete all, it is an obvious POV fork. --Pejman47 22:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Both votes above discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all, as original research. These aren't articles on speculation, they are articles composed of speculation. They don't recount actual academic research on the subject; rather, they recount economic statistics, military information, etc. taken from sources having nothing to do with the country as a superpower, and assimilate them into an argument. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all. Each of these should be dealt with in individual AfD nominations. --Hemlock Martinis 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are all three based on the same implicit assumptions, premises, and each structurally advances an original thesis. Since the articles are all clearly related, and all deal with the same type of premise, it is appropriate to deal with them in one go.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Cristallballing, OR and POV. For those who object on the sole purpose of "we should keep such a detailed article, even when it does not follow wikipedia rules": that's not a valid reason and it is possible to make you own pedia (outside wikipedia) or to save the page on your user subpages. Sijo Ripa 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, These articles are all based on facts and are appropriate for Wikipedia. Effer 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This response really elides the fundamental concerns raised in the nomination, about POV and original research. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whoever keeps on wiping the "nominated for deletion tag" off the China page is clearly trying to influence the results and needs to stop88.104.145.174 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, POV forking (in some of the cases), OR mix-ups, 'super power' very difficult to define in current context (many different definitions in common usage, no consensus), but most of all wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Soman 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and keep all These are obvious signs that are already changing, not just predictions. China's rapidly increasing GDP is not a prediction. This is also true with their technology as well. Factors that keep China from becoming a superpower are agreeable too. Its political troubles with Taiwan and human rights accusations, etc etc are all true. This article has been nicely written with a lot of data and much effort put into it, as well as the other articles. I think a change in the title is fine. This article is overall very informative for anyone who wishes to learn about China becoming a superpower. Good friend100 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody claims that the economic data can't be added to the economy of China article, or that military advances cannot be added to the military of China article, same for Taiwan, etc... But the page, even when renamed, still violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Sijo Ripa 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you work that one out? As I've said, it's not original research because it's well sourced in the media and it has a neutral point of view because both sides of the argument are presented. Every other sentence doubles back on itself, for god's sake! 88.104.240.179 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 88.104.240.179, please create an account. It would make things a lot easier.  Your insistence on using your IP address(es) over a relatively long period of time, and the fact that this use focuses only on this debate, casts doubt on your intentions.  I say this for your benefit...per the AFD page, opinions from unregistered users like yourself may be discounted or weighed less heavily. The article does not deserve to stand JUST BECAUSE it satisfies WP:NPOV.  I can write an unbiased, balanced paper on the advantages and disadvantages of birth control methods, but this would consititute OR by synthesis.  It is original, and thus does not belong on an encyclopedia.--IRelayer 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with IRelayer on this score: while it is admirable that the articles are so well cited and do a good job at maintaining NPOV, that does not change the fact that they are OR. They do not present the theses of other authors but present their own raw data organized and presented as designed by the editors of the article, not published experts.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unregistered users are just as welcome to vote on AfD... and if I created an account with no edits, it would simply move onto being accused of sockpuppetry. WP:Assume good faith I agree with you, but it's pointless creating an account just to vote because it invites controversy. 88.104.235.255 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and aswell it doesn't matter that my IP's are all different and dynamic, because we've not had a large amount of IP's voting "keep". And even if that did happen, you'll see my account is a Tiscali account using WHOIS, and a quick bit of research will discover Tiscali uses dynamic IP's, therby proving me innocent. We are unlikely to have a problem unless a rush of Tiscali users without accounts come to vote "keep" !! Haha 88.104.235.255 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Even if this page is deleted, won't it simply be easily overturned because it was deleted out of process? Some Delete voters have clearly said they would like to see the EU and China articles kept... the articles can't be lumped together and the nominator should be kicking themselves if they want rid of any of the articles for good. 88.104.240.179 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, just take a look to see if any individual article has consensus for 'keep' based on this page. Despite the few who have said that they want certain ones to be kept, the overall picture points towards deleting all of them.  The Behnam 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, someone clearly can't add? 18 are in favour of deleting the articles, 21 are in favour of keeping them in some form or another. 88.104.235.255 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * AFD discussions are not a vote, they're an attempt to forge a rough consensus.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm sorry, but one could write an article on the discussion of countries becoming superpowers, surely? Computerjoe 's talk 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A country becoming a superpower is a prediction or presupposition of the structure of the international system. Superpower is a term indicating relative not absolute power. That means that China could become a superpower without growing at all--all that would be required would be the decline of its rivals (the U.S., Europe, Japan, Russia, India, etc). Writing a story about China becoming a superpower filled with facts about the country's material advancement is inherently confused and misleading, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of relative power vs. absolute power. Moreover, suppose all potential challengers to the U.S. grew quickly, not just one. Then the world would not move to a bipolar system (with two superpowers), but to a multipolar system (in which the term superpower is not used, but "great power" usually is). Thus an article about China becoming a superpower also presupposes that no other countries will grow quickly enough to become a challenger. You can see why writing an article about a country becoming a superpower is therefore inherently problematic: it misunderstands the concept of a superpower on two levels (relative power vs absolute power, and bipolarity vs multipolarity). Wikipedia articles should not be premised on an erroneous speculative prediction.&mdash;Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is not very clear, it seems to have a general difficulty with the term "emerging superpower". But we hear the term and these topics practically everyday on radio nowadays. The articles are well cited, many references directly discuss the emergence of these entities as superpower. Reading the China article, I find it well-written, accurate, and balanced. I don't see an "advance of position" because both sides are equally presented. I will however consider changing my vote if someone could point out specific examples of significant factual errors or original speculations in these articles. --Vsion 05:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, good articles, notable subjects. Everyking 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 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.