Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confucius Peace Prize


 * 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. Not as clear a "keep" result as the number of !votes suggests: the delete side raised valid points such as whether the sourcing was diverse enough to be significant for the purposes of notability, and whether the event passed WP:EVENT. The "Chinese PR/propaganda" arguments had less weight as it is not at all clear what policy or guideline prohibits an article dealing neutrally with a country's propaganda attempt. Overall, the consensus is that the sourcing is sufficient (noting coverage in mainstream western media) and the WP:EVENT argument hasn't been considered in enough detail, nor does it have enough support, to push the result to "delete/redirect/merge" in light of the large numerical support and reasonable arguments for "keep". This one may be worth revisiting in the future, when the impact and enduring notability of the award can be more clearly discerned. Mkativerata (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Confucius Peace Prize

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Speculative award that, as the sources the articles cite make fairly clear, hasn't been given yet, hasn't contacted its supposed first recipient, and is claimed to have governmental connections yet having its director claim to have no governmental connection. Until the award is actually publicly given and shown to have any kind of significance, delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Prize has been awarded (though awardee not in attendance at ceremony), information regarding the prize is all over the internet, with several articles in very notable publications, most of them noting controversy over prize...strong keep.Buyjoe (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if an award is given in a forest and no one receives it, is it really a notable award? --Nlu (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If every major news organization in the world runs a story on it I think it is. Anyway, P.R. China is not a forest...I'm not saying I agree with the award, only that it's notable, if for nothing else, because of its newsworthiness - part of which is due to the fact that P.R. China was stood up by its "recipient.Buyjoe (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep More than enough reliable sources to establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC) : Now that they've given the award, it's a 'real' thing, and it's been covered, and since they say it's been planned since 1988 (The Guardian), it's possible that this might be the first in the series. There is however some doubt that it was given *by* the PRC, since after the media coverage received outside the PRC, no no mniistry seems to be willing to take responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep While the article needs plenty of expansion, it already justifies itself well by comparing the award to a Nazi alternate Nobel. It's clear from that article that the German prize was a short-lived political stunt, but I don't think anyone's suggesting we delete it. The Nobel Prize is serious business, and a world power creating an alternate award in protest is a notable reaction that merits mention. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to it being limited to the Nobel Prize controversies page, but as the other alternate awards have their own pages, Confucius should too. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. The award is essentially a non-existent piece of Chinese propaganda, "created" to blunt the recent Nobel price kerfuffle.  Therefore the award itself, such as it exists, is not notable. No one is really talking about it except in terms of its reactionary-ness to the above. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect as per Tarc. We can always revert to a standalone article if they ever award the prize next year with some decent media coverage, ala Lenin Peace Prize. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it's not WP:BALL speculative, it's real and it has happened. Just because it's pathetic doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. Appears to have sister articles in several other languages. --Bxj (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is a prize no more or less official than Norway's, and one in a long tradition of prizes to come from a criticism of the Nobel Committee's politics. Far from being petty retaliation (it was in the works since 1988), its first recipient, Mr. Lien, has ironically done more for world peace than Mr. Liu has done. Like it or not, it's here to stay. Quigley (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on precedents such as German National Prize for Art and Science. However, it should be noted that this does not mean that we automatically need to create a separate article called List of Confucius Peace Prize laureates, or List of Confucius Peace Prize laureates by age, or Category:Confucius Peace Prize laureates, or Template:Confucius Peace Prize laureates, just because Nobel Peace Prize has a similar apparatus to support it. Even if the Confucius Peace Prize has been announced as annual, there is no guarantee yet that the Chinese government will feel the need to award it next year; they might abandon it. Of course, it is possible that the Chinese Communist Party will maintain the prize and that it will attain some level of prestige over the years, in which case a template, category, etc. might be created, but at this point, such apparatus should not be created yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't do precedents. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keepthis is the most prestigious and important price in the world--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL...China's Ministry of Culture had talked to Taipei yesterday and informed them that they've never even heard of this prize (guess why Lien Chan was not even officially told?)...that is until newspapers started to cover it. The letter issued by this Committee, which claims to have worked with the Ministry of Culture, does not even have the Ministry's seal on it.  "Oops!" ( Ming Pao).--Ceaerrist (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Not official, but notable, covered by media. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Encyclopedic notability is based not on fairness and honourableness of the article subject but on its impact and acquaintance. A Wikipedia article is not a certification but information. --ŠJů (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's irrelevant whether it's a "real" prize or not. This entry will have historical relevance, since it is directly related to Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Price. This fake Confucius prize is maybe a small cog in the machine, but an important one nonetheless. Maybe it should redirect to the main article 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, but not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild Wizard (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Regardless of its nature, this PR fail and gaffe is notable and attracts wide attentions. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I concur with others, Wikipedia doesn't certify legitimacy, we just consider notability. As this award has been covered extensively in international media (in relation to Nobel prize), it is indisputably notable. Just because it may or may not be a propaganda prize doesn't mean it is not real - there was an award given, and a monetary prize, and the footage was shown on TV. There are plenty of articles about awards that have been recently established, and only given once (so far). See: Ben Jobe Award, Walter Scott Prize. Incidentally, in researching this, I discovered that the number of awards given to American NCAA coaches which each have their own article is ridiculous. But I'm not calling delete on any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazerbryant (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep whatever you think of it, probably notable enough for a speedy close now. &mdash;innotata 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable and notable, and has been observed, the Chinese analog of the Lenin Peace Prize and German National Prize for Art and Science. Wingsandsword (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. It obviously has verifiable sources and is of encyclopedic content; my only question is about whether its notoriety (or lack thereof) merits its own article.  If it does not, however, it should be merged, and its content maintained, and not simply redirected. Mnmazur (talk)
 * I did not know that Wikipedia was used as a tool to spread propaganda. May I say that with uttermost respect to Wikipedia/Wikimedia that the Chinese people have acted very strange in the last weeks and have recently broken international laws by hacking various servers/websites in Norway as a result to the "real" Peace Prize. As China has stated. This prize is only for their own interest with no one that will receive it. China attracts media on every aspect. Why consider China before another country. I thought Wikipedia was neutral. Do not support this evil regime. Please, Wikipedia. By keeping this article up and running you will weaken Democracy. I can not allow that to happen. Please. It breaks WIkipedias guidelines and is not notable enough. Use common sense. --FP (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To say that keeping this article is akin to spreading propaganda and supporting "evil regime" is very wrong, imo. It is like saying having Adolf Hitler's article on Wikipedia means that people support him.— Chris! c / t 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep; more than enough references to establish notability. Government-associated peace prizes are hardly numerous, so it's not exactly routine news. C628 (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous nomination. STRONG KEEP and no merge unless it fails to be awarded again next year. -LlywelynII (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the point, isn't it? I think there is zero evidence that we will see a second year of this award.  And with that being the case, if it is not going to be notable if a second year of this award is not given, then it is not notable now.  Existence ≠ Notability.  --Nlu (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010 Nobel Peace Prize - The creation of this award is basically China's PR stunt in response to this year's Nobel Peace Prize. It is doubtful that China will actually continue this award once this is over. So, the best course of action is to merge, imo.— Chris! c / t 07:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect This is just a publicity stunt done by the Chinese government, its not notable enough to have a page of its own, but it should be redirected to a sub-topic under the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize page. I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here!  09:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep with a strong recommendation that a link to (and from) 2010 Nobel Peace Prize be added. The Confucius Peace Prize has received extensive media coverage around the world, albeit with almost universal mockery and eye-rolling.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 12:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a propaganda/PR effort to oppose the NPP, but lives considerably in its shadow or tries to hang onto its coattails. All mentions of it are in direct connection with the NPP. It may have the tacit endorsement of the state, but it is not even sponsored by the state nor any notable organisation, and so has no independent notability. It should be redirected to 2010 Nobel Peace Prize at best. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading from the above comments, there appears to be a miscomprehension about the policy on notability. Indeed there are many sources covering the story. However, those news articles centred on the subject are all from the same agency-syndicated story, say essentially the same thing, meaning that there it actually fails "Significant coverage". If this were a person, the prize would fail WP:ONEEVENT. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this is not notable enough to have a standalone article. But I think it deserves mentioning in 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. This is China's response to the whole Peace Prize kerfuffle.— Chris! c / t 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is certainly notable by any definition of the term, regardless of the motivation of the prize or how well it is executed its first year (and it is notable even if it is only given once). I do not think that it necessarily deserves mention in the 2010 Nobel peace prize article, but the 2010 Nobel peace prize probably deserves mention here (as indeed it is given).    Son of eugene (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might like to keep an eye on the Confucius Peace Prize article. I inserted a "See also" link to the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize article, because of their obvious connection, and it was deleted without explanation within hours.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 21:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is unnecessary since the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize link is in the prose already.— Chris! c / t 23:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. After I posted above, I noticed that the link had been inserted into the prose with the same edit that removed the "See also" link. My bad.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 00:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know if lowly IP Addresses have weight in this vote, but I nonetheless support this article's existence on Wikipedia. It is notable by all means and very heavilly sourced, and also referenced by the mainstream media at large. It even has an image and a good chunk of content already standing. It needs expansion, yes, but it is a good article and a worthwhile inclusion, at least in my eyes. --99.157.108.248 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * IP users are allowed to participate in Articles for deletion discussions (which are officially not considered to be "votes"). As with registered users, their recommendations are supposed to be evaluated based on the reasons they give, not just the number of people taking the "keep" or "delete" side. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As this award has been reported by many mainstream news media.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The point, again, is not whether it has been covered by mainstream media or not; it clearly has, many many times over. The point is: is it a 15 minutes of fame situation?  Will anyone even hear of the award again after the current discussion about this year's Nobel's is over?  If it dies (and I have every reason to believe that it will) it is simply not notable by itself.  --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — Even if a one off award, it is notable, well documented, and of international significance. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have gone over the article's citations and amalgamated and/or removed the duplicated ones. It can now be seen that it is not as much 'multiply and heavily sourced' as implied, but reliant on a few syndicated stories from the three or four major news agencies. It should also be noted that a number of them, in particular the Economist citation does not even mention the CPP; some of the others merely recycle aspects of the syndicated news report. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From the economist article cited: "The battering suffered by the West during the global economic crisis appears to have made Chinese leaders thicker skinned. But the state-controlled media’s handling of the first “Confucius Peace Prize”, which was awarded in Beijing this week, suggests that officials remain sensitive. The Chinese press played the event down. Officials said the government did not have a hand in it (as the party-affiliated Global Times reported, in Chinese). Perhaps they might have worried that Hitler too organised a home-grown version of the Nobel prize, the German National Prize for Art and Science, in response to von Ossietzky’s award." --Banana (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   verbalize 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. This prize has coverage, but devoting an entire article to it is unnecessary at this point, as there is evidence that the prize is just a reaction to the recent Nobel prize event.  Snotty Wong   verbalize 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a notable award, getting ample coverage even if most if it is negative. There is enough valid information to fill an article, so it shouldn't be merged elsewhere.   D r e a m Focus  21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1)Diversity of sources
 * Weak Keep I spent a lot of time thinking about this. Looking at the notability guidelines for events (WP:EVENT), there are several things outlined.
 * I see coverage in an official Chinese newspaper three weeks before the event and then covering the actual event, a bunch of articles in Western papers based off of an AP report, Taiwanese newspapers covering it's political implications inside of Taiwan, and then commentary from The New York Times (not included in the article, but I'm using it here to establish notability) and the Economist.

2)Lasting effects
 * None, but I think this falls under this quote from the policy: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."

3) Geographical scope
 * Don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.

4) Depth of coverage
 * Commentary by Economist and the New York Times.

5) Duration of coverage
 * The policy:"a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." I think the commentary (especially from the Economist about the future long term implications for China) pushes this over.

--Banana (talk) 01:20, 14 December 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.