Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard of living in 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   no consensus. The earlier "delete" opinions are given less weight as it is not clear that the people who made them were aware that the source of the text is a public domain US government country study, which invalidates the assertions that the text is unsourced.  Sandstein  05:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Standard of living in the People's Republic of China

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an unsourced and arbitrary essay. The subject is covered properly here, as it is for any other nation on Wikipedia. Karpouzi (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as Content forking. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete For a lack of sources. Was this article written as a report for school? And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced original essay. It's not all bad, but this, my friends, is a classic example of verboten "original research" that The Great Philosophers deemed out of bounds for Wikipedia in days of yore. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. The article is not original research, it is copied from a reliable public domain source. We have plenty of articles that were originally copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, this is no different.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The PRC started in what, 1949. How the HELL can this be taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica?!?!?! Carrite (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - but not on its own. Perhaps it can be included in one of several articles on the economy of China. Also, We should give the author the chance to provide sources for his information. It is good enough to keep for a week (without deletion) so that it could be sourced. A further issue is that there are already several articles already touching on the subject and has value to add to such pieces. DeusImperator (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "We should give the author the chance...": The original author has not been active since 2007; some 35 other editors have edited the article, only one of which has managed to provide a reference to a source. So who is "the author" whom we should give that chance? --Lambiam 11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Well-written, but it isn't suitable for Wikipedia, I'm afraid.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I don't know if the almost totally unsourced contents of the current article can somehow be salvaged, it appears to me that the topic is notable, and not treated in the same depth by the much broader Economy of the People's Republic of China. It is also not true that no other nation on Wikipedia has a separate article on the standard of living: Standard of living in India·Standard of living in Israel·Standard of living in Japan·Standard of living in Pakistan·Standard of living in the United States. --Lambiam 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm surprised that no one above seems to have noticed that the article is completely sourced. It clearly states at the bottom that it incorporates public domain material from the Library of Congress, which I consider a reliable source. It is not just an essay written by some student. In addition, it is a notable topic, and worthy of inclusion.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not even remotely close to being sourced. Statement after statement after statement after statement appear with no in-line footnotes... This is a flat F of an essay in any high school social studies class in America. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, there is plenty of precedence for adding material verbatim from public domain sources on Wikipedia, and adding a note at the bottom of the article. I have made the exact source of the information more clear now, so perhaps that will resolve the confusion.--Danaman5 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Danaman5 is right. In spite of having been edited often since its creation based on Library of Congress material, there has been only one substantive change in all those years: the addition of one paragraph of material, properly sourced in-line. The rest is all wikification. --Lambiam 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though written like a essay, the article still covers valuable information and is sourced well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaxtreme (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think all you "keep" !voters are a little confused by our point of view. It's not that the subject itself isn't notable, but the fact that it's written in an essay form makes it look like an unnecessary content fork.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 00:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But WP:NOTESSAY applies to "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic", which this is not. This is a summation of expert opinions written by a reliable source, the Library of Congress. It is no different than an article copied over from the public domain edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, of which there are many on Wikipedia. Many of the delete voters seem to be operating under the false notion that this article is unsourced, which is simply not the case.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is full of personal feelings; that's what essays are. Just because it isn't written in the first person doesn't mean personal feelings aren't there.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, but this article could be recreated. I do not believe this is content forking; I wish such articles were possible for every country.  In this case however, there is a lot of content here with no in-line citations and it is hard to put any of it into the "source."  The content does not meet WP:V because verification is not a theoretical matter - the editor must present content in a way that users can reasonably verify.  Giving a single citation to a huge source does not meet V.  Also, the content is not encyclopedic and is filled with speculation. The source is good for some things, but does not meet WP:RS for everything.  Delete now, and recreate when someone wants to devote time to this massive, difficult project.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the template used for referencing to make the exact source more clear. To find the exact paragraphs, click on the "China: a country study" link that is now at the bottom and scroll down to the "Living Standards" and "Income Distribution" sections. Additionally, I don't really see the "speculation" or "personal opinions" in the article that others have pointed out. Perhaps someone could provide some examples.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would need to see a way to reference every paragraph in this article for me to consider it well-referenced. If you formatted your background reading reference into an inline citation and then inserted it 20 times or however many times it needs to go in, then that would be a starting point for other people to add their own references without confusing what came from what source.  It might be the case that the same citation needs to go at the end of every sentence, especially if as little as one other reference were added to each paragraph.  I see that this reference is to a website which generates temporary dynamic content, so I understand why it is not possible to make direct references to the exact section headings.  Still, the user deserves some explanation of how to verify the source, and that is not clear right now.
 * Here are some statements which seem to me like speculation or personal opinions:


 * "Until the end of the 1970s, the fruits of economic growth were largely negated by population increases"
 * "In the 1980s one of the most visible signs of the economic "revolution" was the appearance in Chinese cities of large quantities of relatively modern, varied, colorful clothes, a sharp contrast to the monotone image of blue and gray suits that typified Chinese dress in earlier years. "
 * "In 1978 there were only 3.6 sq m of living space per inhabitant in these cities, a reduction of 0.9 square meter since 1949. To remedy this problem, construction of modern urban housing became a top priority in the late 1970s,"
 * "There was never any attempt, however, at complete equalization, and a wide range of income levels remained"
 * "The small but dynamic domestic private sector also produced some lucrative opportunities"
 * "Perhaps the most serious gaps in living standards between rural and urban areas were in education and health care."
 * The problem with these statements is that they all make a subjective assertion. These and other similar statements in the article could be fixed, but the problem with WP:V is paramount.  Every statement in every article on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and this article is extremely difficult to verify right now.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   05:38, 10 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.