Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serfdom in Tibet controversy


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Serfdom in Tibet controversy
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".

It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.

The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, History, Buddhism, Geography, Social science, Asia,  and Central Asia.  Augend  (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: . Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.


 * That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.
 * Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.