Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberation ideologies in Communist 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. Note dropped on the author's talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberation ideologies in Communist China

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Superficially looks OK, but this is a complete mess, moved to mainspace without going through the AFC process. A little of it might be merged into People's Republic of China, but most of it has little actual bearing on the subject (eg the lead has no relevance to China). There's a lot of anecdotes about individuals, and large unparaphrased quotes from cites, but very little of the article one can say is both well-cited and actually pertinent to the subject of the article - even if that merits an article of its own, especially given the higher quality article at Ideology of the Communist Party of China.

To be clear, I'm arguing both that this does not merit an article of its own and that if it did, the existing text would be of little or no use in constructing it. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, i have notified the article creator of this afd, the nom forgot?Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Twinkle had a Moment and it's a while since I've done an AFD by hand. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Gently.  This has the format of a school essay (argumentative, speculative, quick to generalize) instead of an encyclopedia article (descriptive, factual, specific).  As such it seems to want to prove a point.  Perhaps not a complete mess but the very framing of the topic is a show-stopper IMO.  The editor is indeed a student and deserves an extra dollop of kindness and patience maybe.  --Lockley (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I like it since I can tell that the author really cares about the conditions of people in China and is trying to do something to help, smartly speaking to the establishment there in their own language. However this is not really a defined topic (WP style), and is not even really an essay.  It is more like a personal blog where items, both positive and critical, are posted. That is not what WP is for, however admirable.CalSteven (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (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.