Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court of General Jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Court of General Jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no mention for such generalization and categorization. Viztor (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wow! This article has been here for thirteen years! I can see a snippet ref here which indicates that this isn’t a specific court, it’s a general description of courts that don’t have a specific jurisdiction (e.g. the railway courts or the internet courts that exist in China). So no need for us to keep it. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If what you say is correct, this would be a synonym for Court of special jurisdiction (China) and redirect would be in order . SpinningSpark 15:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I’m saying it’s the antonym of ‘Court of Special Jurisdiction’. It’s any court that doesn’t have a SJ. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread you statement as meaning the exact opposite. I still don't see the value of deleting.  Since it is terminology actually in use, why not just reword to make clear it is not itself one of the four levels?  Or else redirect to Judicial system of China and explain it there. SpinningSpark 22:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. No meaningful content and no source to prove this level of the court system actually exists. Here I don't think China's Supreme People's Court fits the definition of a "court of general jurisdiction" at all. Esiymbro (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (tentative). I looked at the Chinese Wikipedia rather than English sources.  I believe this article is referring to this category of "ordinary courts": 中華民國法律#普通法院 or 中華民國法院制度#普通法院
 * This article when translated by Google says:


 * According to "People's Republic of China Constitution" and "People's Court Organic Law of the People's Republic of China," people's courts are the judicial organs, can be divided into special people's courts and the ordinary courts. There is no separate administrative court.


 * The ordinary court is divided into:


 * The Supreme People's Court is the highest judicial organ of the state ...


 * The local people's court is divided into three levels:
 * 1. Basic people's courts : including county people's courts, flag people's courts, city people's courts (without districts)...
 * 2. Intermediate People's Court...
 * 3. Higher People's Court : provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Higher People's Court...


 * Specialized people's courts: including military courts (the PLA, level units, and military-level units), railway transportation courts (with intermediate and grassroots level 2), maritime courts (not classified, equivalent to intermediate people's courts ), forestry courts, and farms Courts , petroleum courts, etc.
 * Based on this, I believe the article in question is referring to what this Chinese article is calling the "ordinary court" (普通法院分为).   --David Tornheim (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two articles you referred to is actually the Court System of Republic of China(commonly called Taiwan), but that's cool. And I don't think this is about the category though, most jurisdiction have courts of general jurisdiction and courts of special jurisdiction (like Court of International Trade of the U.S.) However, that alone doesn't justify the existence of an article on general jurisdiction, because it is what it is literally, there is no need to explain anything, and nothing could be explained besides the word general jurisdiction. Viztor (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct that my first two links were for Taiwan (which I had not noticed), but I think we agree that it appears to apply the same as to mainland China, since Taiwan is incorporated into the mainland, although I admit, I don't know if the integration has created a dual court system, like was found with 1066 creation of Common_law. The longer quote I believe applies to the mainland (and possibly equally to Taiwan).
 * As for "there is no need to explain anything", I think this is actually more an issue of organization, and the problem appears that our articles don't accurately and correctly articulate the structure. This chart does not match Template:PRC_courts.  The material I show above is more like the chart than our template.  So my feeling is that we need to correct the material to match the WP:RS.  Unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese, and I know I can't trust Google translate.  I think we need someone fluent in Chinese to help us figure out what is going on and if there are mistakes in the organization of these Chinese court articles.  If you know of high quality English WP:RS that shows the organization and matches our template rather than the chart, I would like to see it.  Without WP:RS about how the court system is actually structured, I don't think we can determine what do with this article or with other similar articles about the Chinese court system.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Taiwan is incorporated into the mainland”? No, absolutely not! A source describing the judicial system in one country can’t be used as the basis for an article about another. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually, they just divide it like supreme court, local and special, given that a special court is either subject to a local court's appellate jurisdiction or the supreme one's, and the local ones subject to supreme one's. So IMO, the current template works for me. Supreme court has ALL the jurisdiction, it would be rare if we put it under a category of "General Jurisdiction". Viztor (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. A thorough search for legal scholarship on such an entity turns up nothing. There may well be courts having general jurisdiction in the People's Republic of China, but there is no entity with the name, "Court of General Jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China". bd2412  T 00:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-sourced and not notable. If the terminology actually "IS" in use then we should be able to prove it with at least one source that, at the least, could support a redirect. If we redirect and "explain it there" that would seem to be a merge and would be advancing original research. Otr500 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, I think there is no need to keep it. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (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.