Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maoist China phraseology


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Maoist China phraseology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After having read the article, it's talk page, it's history and the WP:Deletion policy I believe that this article should be deleted. The article is not more than a random list of poorly translated and unsourced slogans which looks mostly to be intended to support a POV. Such a list even if well written would violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if the concept of the article were valid the editing involved to improve the article is extremely unlikely to occur as, looking at the history reveals that only one user has contributed content to the article. That user, User:Arilang1234 has been indefinitely suspended from editing. A look at the talk page reveals that another user thought the page should be deleted but Arilang1234 and another user thought some time should be given to add sources. No such effort has occured, and nor will it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. An irredeemable selective list of the most prurient catchphrases, unsourced and couched in original research and interpretations obviously intended to support a POV. Quigley (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Awful POV and I don't think it's redeemable. We have a lot of work to do merging or AfDing the slew of POV forks Arilang has left behind. NickDupree (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:NOT. or it can be redirected to Maoism with a minimum of fuss. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever useful content and all the sources (which are always useful) to Maoism. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is not anything worth merging, the two books referenced are already directly referenced in Cultural Revolution where they are relevant and the others do not seem significant. I do not see how the article Maoism would be improved by the inclusion of any of this content. The significant phrases either have their own articles or are mentioned with some context in the articles on the topics they are related to, most Cultural Revolution. To include any of the rest of the content an editor would have to go back to the source as the bits here are not usable, because they are either not significant enough, inaccurate, POV, or don't provide enough context or details to be understood. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not a dictionary. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as a series of dictionary definitions. Inclusion criteria is indeterminate and the definitions themselves are unsourced, making this an original essay. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic original research. --EdwardZhao (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2011 (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.