Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chongqing public trials


 * 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 snow keep. Article has been almost completely rewritten since nomination, and now easily meets requirements for notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Chongqing public trials

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Very skimpy article with no evidence that the trials are notable in the English-speaking world. &mdash; RHaworth 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Reason for nomination invalid: there is no "in the English-speaking world" caveat to the notability guidelines. Further, one or two sources in English can be found within seconds, and taking five minutes out of a lunch-break turns up loads more. Can we have a little bit of WP:BEFORE please? --Paularblaster (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing worth salvaging in the current form. The names would need to be in English for the English-language Wikipedia, and at least one significant reliable source should be in English. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Changing to keep based on revamped version of article. Not at all happy about the bullshit comment from Paularblaster though. I know nothing of the subject or the language, and I was simply expressing my opinion based on the article as it was at the time. Paularblaster should consider refactoring that comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The thought does occur to me that in the time it took you to type out a "delete" rationale, you could easily have been adding a reliable source in English from the links provided above. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Returning here after Scjessey's little lecture on my talkpage about (oh irony!) "civility", I can only say that my comment was not intended to make him happy, but to make him reflect. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of taking AfD participants seriously, you have chosen to ridicule them if they do not share your point of view. Reflect on that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Major corruption case, quite significant in PRC politics. Also a note to anyone voting below: the version that was nominated for deletion is entirely different than the current version. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent job on the rewrite! The current version clearly establishes notability.  --Chris Johnson (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - From the extensive coverage in the media, it is clear that this has notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - please take this off AfD now. This is just about the most significant trial in the most populous nation of the world since the Gang of Four. If similar scale operations were happening in the U.S. or Britain I reckon it'd have made it to ItN on the Main page by now. Colipon+ (Talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest SNOW close, the article has been entirely rewritten and everyone voting has said 'keep'. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the AfD from the page. I doubt there will be any serious objectors. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that this is unlikely to draw objections, I would like to point out that this is not the appropriate procedure. Please leave such things to the closing admin in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.