Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution


 * 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   keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1) WP:CONTENTFORK, that is, Chinese Civil War and Chinese Civil War are more detailed, plus they have sources 2) NPOV issues 3) WP:STUB ch (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not WP:CONTENTFORK, rather it is WP:SPINOFF. The article Chinese Communist Revolution is linked to from Chinese Civil War and the former is supposed to be a sub-article of the latter covering the second part of the civil war. The article Chinese Civil War contains only summary information of this subject which should be expanded upon. Poor quality content is not a reason for deletion of an article. Rather the article should be improved to meat the required standards. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I find it generally unfathomable that this topic would not deserve its own article. Just becase a topic can be thought of as a part of another topic doesn't mean it can't have its own article. There is plenty of overlap of this kind on wikipedia and it is a very good thing. There's plenty of bad content on wikipedia's china related articles, be bold by deleting clearly bogus content, not the articles. (not to suggest there aren't also plenty of bogus articles). WP:AQU, I've made this kind of mistake myself. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2013 (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.