Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qianhai


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 05:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Qianhai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to be an advertisement for a development in western Shenzhen. Created mainly by User:Cli2014, who has not made any other edits to the encyclopedia aside from promoting Qianhai and asking why the article doesn't yet show up in a Google Search. The user was formerly called Qianhaisghzq but requested a name change. Additionally, he/she uploaded images to Wikipedia Commons which are official renderings/promotional maps produced by the Qianhai development authority. For these reasons, I suspect conflict of interest and perhaps a case of paid editing.

The article itself is riddled throughout with factual errors which serve to promote the development. For example:


 * Boasting of Qianhai's future connectivity when the rail system is fully built-out, without mentioning that many railway projects are merely proposals, and some, like the HK-SZ Western Express Line, have been shelved due to doubts about financial viability/ridership.


 * Dubious statements, like that Qianhai is within a "30-minute commuting radius of Hong Kong." Certainly not by the existing railway services. By car you could probably reach the border of Hong Kong, but not the city centre.


 * Statements about "Qianhai's leading industries" in the present tense, when the area is largely a muddy construction site at present. Some recent construction photos here.


 * A lot of purely speculative content about how great the development will be. Unreferenced speculation like "Qianhai will promote the development of software and information technology services, as well as facilitate the cooperation between mainland and Hong Kong telecom operators. With abundant manufacturing and logistics resources, Qianhai is also poised to become a thriving hub for online services such as e-commerce."


 * Reference in the present tense to buildings which do not exist. Names a number of firms that have "already moved in" to Qianhai Enterprise Dream Park, when in fact the first buildings are not projected to be ready for occupancy until December. References a news article in Chinese which does not support the claim.

Much of what isn't factually incorrect or unreferenced speculation is content from the official website. It's a convincing attempt at producing a genuine-looking article, but it's entirely promotional. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason why this article brought me to wikipedia is because I felt like there are many misconceptions about Qianhai in Western media, and because it is a strategically significant area I felt like there was a need to clarify a few things about the current stage it is in as well as the positioning and planning for the city. There is very little English media coverage on what has happened in Qianhai for the past year, and there are many things that are very outdated. Now the reason why it seems promotional is because the city, as you said, is still under construction, which I mentioned in the article, so most of the material in the article is planned. However, the policies and plans for the industries were translated directly from the reports of the State Council which can be verified with the sources I provided.


 * * I believe the Leading Industries misconception can be fixed by changing it into future tense.


 * * About the speculative content you quoted, that quotation was also from the report from the State Council. I will provide a reference for that.


 * * About the Dream Park article, plans for the official move in for most firms is December, but the firms that were mentioned have actually moved in to the Dream Park. I will find a source which can verify this but I understand that it was originally unclear. Cli2014 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have begun to edit the article to make it neutral and objective, and I would hugely appreciated it if interested volunteers could help me make it as objective and appropriately referenced as possible as that is what I am aiming for. Cli2014 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Should you declare a conflict of interest? If not, how can you claim the images from the Qianhai authority to be your own work? Citobun (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that I read Wikipedia's regulations more clearly I believe that I should. I am not an employee of Qianhai authorities, nor was I hired by them to write this page, however I do have personal connections who have spoken about how little there is on Qianhai in English. This led me to create this page, as I felt like there was important information that should be available in English for people everywhere to learn more about modern China. As well, they have granted me permission to use their images as my own. I will declare a conflict of interest asap, and thank you for the reminder. I should have done this earlier but was unfamiliar with Wikidepdia policies. I wish to present Qianhai in an objective light, without puffery and marketing, in order to uphold Wikipedia values. Cli2014 (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * keep It has many issues but that's not reason alone to delete and there seems enough there for an article once cleaned up, while it seems like a notable topic.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic. Needs some clean up but that's not a showstopper. Because the sources for this are official Chinese documents, it is not surprising that the language is overblown and promotional in tone - that's how such screeds are written. Philg88 ♦talk 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep notable without question. Promotional language should be removed or reworded, but deletion is unwarranted. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2014 (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.