Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibet – South Africa relations


 * 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. Consensus is that this does not meet the requirements for a standalone article. I imagine that a redirect to People's Republic of China–South Africa relations would be useful, but that's an editorial decision. The deleted content (which is about two instances in which the Dalai Lama did not get a visa for South Africa) can be restored if somebody really thinks it's important enough to incorporate it into other articles.  Sandstein  09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tibet – South Africa relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article describes a non-occurent relationship. Relations between the dalai lama (a private individual) and South Africa do not equate to relations between Tibet and South Africa. And as the article makes clear, South Africa hasn't even had relations with the dalai lama.  Claret Ash  12:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Tibet is not an independent nation and the "relations" covered in the article focuses on whether H.H. The Dalai Lama was able to get a visa to enter South Africa. Perhaps that information can be imported to the existing article on diplomatic relations between the Beijing and Pretoria governments? And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Disagree with "Tibet is not an independent nation" being a reason, but there really isn't content here. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable; for example, see Engaged Buddhism in the West. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * resolution by editing policy is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our editing policy says to "Preserve appropriate content. and this is definitely a reason for keeping. Warden (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * articles are kept if there is consensus notability is met, I don't see any consensus for keep here, plus Warden I've seen you recycle editing policy argument numerous times and it hardly relates here as the main argument against keeping is that the article name is not representative as a notable topic. Editing policy does not address this issue. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The South African government's attitude towards the Dali Lama is controversial and might well warrant an article. However, presenting the material as 'Tibet - South Africa' relations isn't going to help readers (who'd never look for it under such a name) and confuses the issue. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete relations with Dalai Lama does not equate to bilateral relations. This is WP:SYNTH. Tibet has no passport or national parliament unlike say Taiwan. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Why should the Dalai Lama not be a representative of Tibet and thus constitute Tibet-South Africa relations even under such a recondite title? And also, one cannot dispute that Tibet is not a political entity of itself and can therefore form part of a political relation. Just because it is not a nation state or independent political unit by classification does not diminish its political influence. I think the nominator has given a poor reason for deleting this article: there is definitely an "occurring relationship" but not by his/her pedantic definition. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no skin off my teeth whether the dalai lama should or shouldn't be a represntative of Tibet. The fact of the matter, though, is that he isn't. To the best of my knowledge, Tibet does not possess the right to engage in independent international relations, and even if Beijing has granted the region that power, the Dalai Lama has not been empowered to exercise those rights. The Dalai Lama can claim to represent the Tibetan government in exile but he has no official authority in or over Tibet. As it is, this article doesn't even discuss relations with the Tibetan govt-in-exile, merely with a private individual.  Claret Ash  03:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nick-D and nom. GotR Talk 04:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of others' comments above, I'm modifying my view somewhat. I suggest the article content be merged into a more appropriate article (both People's Republic of China–South Africa relations and 14th Dalai Lama would be good) prior to being deleted.  Claret Ash  01:31, 2 January 2012 (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.