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. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for POV essays, which this effectively is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in strongest terms possible. This is a part of WikiProject China and WikiProject Power in international relations. It is an article of long standing, is well-referenced and represents the efforts of a lot of editors. The cure for POV, which I do not see at a quick glance, is not deletion but adding counter points and editing POV to NPOV. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep - I just spent an enjoyable and thought provoking 20 minutes browsing the listed article. I saw no NPOV issues, and learned quite a bit which I would not have gleaned from any of the other China related pages. It is one of the best cited articles on Wikipedia, and should absolutely be kept. I'd like to get this debate wrapped up quickly so the Deletion tag can be removed. It drastically misrepresents the article's status. -bobby 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title does suggest an unencyclopaedic essay, but the article covers a lot while sticking to the facts. There are some problems, such as occasional weasel words and a tone that sometimes makes this read more like a brochure for potential investors than an encyclopaedia article. The tone and title might need a look, but this is just too good, and verified, to justify deletion. -- IslaySolomon|talk 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned about original research here; for example, it does use facts about China, but the facts are meant to be persuasive about its influence, not informative. There's also a concern about the reliability of some of the sourcing (forexblog, an expat blog, is used even though expats unless they're also reporters are not reliable sources on China, and the source is actually presenting opinions as weasel-worded facts, see reference 110.) My suggestion is 1) slap an NPOV tag on it, 2) cut it down to a more reasonable length and clear out all the OR, and 3) monitor it carefully for edit wars. I'm not sure if deletion is the answer, as there are many sources. ColourBurst 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or Delete
I agree with ColourBurst. Deletion is the last resort solution to the OR problem in this otherwise well-written article. The OR problem is that the parts that are verifiable are the facts and this article appears to synthesize the facts into a comprehensive theory. This makes it a good piece of writing but OR nonetheless and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia.
What needs to be verifiable is that reliable source X believes that factors A,B,C are reasons why China is an emerging superpower and reliable source Y believes that factors D,E,F are reasons why China will have problems in the future. In other words, the author(s) do not need to prove that the factors A,B,C,D,E,F are true. They need to prove that reliable sources, X,Y,Z believe that these factors are relevant and significant to the question.
Surely there are books written on the subject. Cite them.
Keep. If this article is nominated for anything, it should be GA, not AfD. AecisDancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Well sourced, well written, notable subject, and hardly any POV violations except for a few weasel words. Has been speedily kept before.--TBCΦtalk? 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe all these comments about the quality of the article are missing the point. The point is not that it's badly written. It's not. The point it is that it's currently a position paper, not an encyclopedic article. Even the title is POV. One can write the most persuasive, most elegantly written paper in the world, and it would still be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As a long time contributor I have worked hard to convert these articles to NPOV and avoid OR. I do not believe it deserves deletion as it is a notable discussion point in modern society. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The topic is supported by multiple reputable sources. I don't see this as a PoV essay. Instead I'd like to see a comparable article on India. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with some minor reservations) - I will accept that, at first sight, the title gives the impression of crystal-balling. However the article doesn't engage in speculation - it is an accumulation of sourced facts bearing on China's international power. I have some concerns over layout (the points for/against) and, given its title, there is the risk that it will encourage POV/OR editing. However I offset this against the number of excellent editors who are doing a creditable job in keeping it clean. I would suggest though that thought be given to orienting the article more towards the opinions of IR academics rather than a simple presentation of facts (per Richard, above). Xdamrtalk 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More comment. Assuming that it is kept, any objections to renaming it to China as a potential superpower? --Nlu (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These articles (China/India/EU) have gone through a number of variations on a theme of 'potential superpower' or 'emerging superpower' - either way the title looks crystal-ballish (even if the article itself isn't). I don't really have any alternative suggestion (sorry) but I think that any emerging/potential/possible/future title is bad and should be avoided. Xdamrtalk 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all crystal ball-ish. However, so are a number of articles related to global warming. This kind of prognostication is important and therefore encyclopedic. I would focus less on the title and more on getting the article to survey the opinions of reliable sources rather than trying to be a reliable source in itself. --Richard 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be China as a potential superpower, but what's the point of making an article just because a nation has potential. Then we would have less reason to delete articles made by people who just wanted to make their country look good, as many countries have "potential", to be "emerging" is a state of actual movement to the status of superpower and is harder to make an article on. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename i.e. move and delete old name instead of redirect. The article may be good, but the title isn't. In many publications China is already listed as a superpower. Just for example from 1999: [1]Bejnar 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:While I am not particularly fond of the insane , militant and oppressive Government of the People's Republic (though they have calmed down somewhat thanks to Xiaopeng and after) it is a fact that the PRC is an emerging superpower, both militarily and economically. Lots of sources support the claim that PRC is an emergent superpower. Regardless of the quality of the article the subject of PRC as an emergent superpower is noteworthy enough to warrant an article on wikipedia. If the nominator feels that the article is "too much like an essay" then he is free to try and fix it.Hkelkar 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite The basic idea is fine. The problem is that the article needs a lot of work to get up to scratch. It should have separate sections for the main topics once - then there can be for/against views inside. The current for/anti titles allow for too much repitition or contradiction. John Smith's 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think this article has a serious POV problem, as it clearly shows multiple sides of this issue. This is an issue that has been talked about in the media in recent times, and therefore it need not consist of original research (although it may have some now that needs to be removed). Heimstern Läufer 05:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason for the article to be deleted. --estavisti 15:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or/and Wikify but not delete.For example "potencial superpower" instead of emerging--Pixel ;-) 16:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.