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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China exclusion policy of NASA[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The current citations in the article about the policy itself are two primary source references (one being an appropriations act passed by congress, one being letter written by a U.S. House of Reps member). Another source is a 2010 AFP piece about how a NASA administrator was going to visit China that occurred prior to the passage of the appropriations rider that the article appears to be about. Other sources present don't appear to describe the policy in detail.

I've tried to find in-depth sources on the policy/appropriations rider itself, but I admit that I cannot find significant coverage. The article appears to have additional problems (the title doesn't appear to meet WP:COMMONNAME and doesn't appear to meet WP:CRITERIA owing to its lack of precision). The problems present (both regarding notability and other items) motivate me to nominate this article for deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination and support Keep There is significant coverage of the article's topic as the "Wolf Amendment". Admittedly I did not encounter or search that term prior to the nomination, though I did make an effort to search for the China Exclusion Policy of NASA and other similar terms. It might be wise to look towards a movement of the article title towards what appears to be its WP:COMMONNAME, but it's clear that there's significant coverage, as established by Volteer1 and BrxBrx. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although perhaps a single sentence or two could be salvaged and placed in NASA and / or China–United States relations. Overall this doesn't seem to have enough cohesive coverage as a single unified topic to justify an article. As it is this article has a WP:SYNTHy feel to it - taking a bunch of disconnected stories, tying them around public law 113-6 (which has almost no direct coverage), and giving it an intensely overbearing name to make it sound far more significant than it is. But public Law 113-6 has almost no news coverage and its only impact seems to have been a single incident, which itself received minimal coverage and was quickly resolved. --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably just be because you're searching for the wrong thing, I don't think anyone calls it that. See below, try "Wolf amendment" for instance. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Merge~~ with Space policy of the United States, as I agree with Aquillion that there's some useful information. The policy still exists and it's still getting the occasional news piece (e.g. spacenews.com in February), and as the article still gets a lot of interest there's no point in deleting it entirely. The article still needs a lot of truncation and work, however. Keep certainly isn't suitable as the article also concerns the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and at least needs a rename. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the new name so I've changed from merge to keep. As I said above there's useful information and it's still relevant and important, so delete is not applicable in my view. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What if the page title is changed to reflect what the article is about? Maybe it could be titled NASA China policy, NASA ban on Chinese engagement, or U.S. ban on NASA engagement with China? The article is pretty significant concerning U.S.–China relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for "Wolf Amendment" in combination with "NASA" seems to get me a few hits. No comment if this is SIGCOV, but thought worth mentioning in case it helps. CMD (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rename to "China-United States space relations" or merge to China–United States relations, this is a notable topic, but if it's notable enough to split it off from the parent relations article is more debatable. Would likely lean more towards merging as splitting it seems uncommon at least for this kind of topic. Jumpytoo Talk 03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think a good faith effort was ever made WP:BEFORE it was nominated. As well as The Guardian and Scientific American sources in the article: [1][2], about 30 seconds on google gives me ARS Technica: [3], Politico: [4], Time: [5], The Telegraph: [6], Financial Times: [7], etc. Not opposed to a rename, and this article could very clearly do with some work, but we really do have to stop with these silly AfD nominations of clearly notable subjects. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has extensive significant coverage of the topic itself - not merely as a part of NASA policy broadly interpreted. As User:Volteer1 points out, trivial effort on a wp:BEFORE search returns extensive reliable and in-depth coverage from sources as varied as magazines to polisci and scientific research journals on this topic - and I found some more [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I am therefore perplexed as to why @Mikehawk10: believes that this does not count as significant coverage - could you please elaborate why this coverage is not significant? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 03:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mikehawk10:, why did you change the name of the article before this AfD was closed? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to withdraw the AfD, and I guess I was unable to do so. I'm admittedly not super experienced in the topic area of deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have waited for an admin to close the discussion. I think you should get in touch with one and they can close this AfD since you've withdrawn your nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2021 (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.