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 REDIRECT to Human rights in China#Ethnic minorities. Acxle has pretty much made this a fait accompli by adding the material into the article. No comment on whether or not this can eventually be cut out into a stand-alone article. SpinningSpark 20:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights of ethnic minorities in China[edit]

Human rights of ethnic minorities in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article duplicates the topic of Human rights in China and Ethnic issues in China. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Ethnic issues in China categorised as Category:Racism by country, Category:People's Republic of China culture. Human rights in China has small section about ethnic minorities in China. There are 55 ethnic groups in China. Acxle (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. The topic is perfectly covered within the scope of those articles. Also, why does it matter or should we care about how many ethnic groups there are in China? M. Caecilius (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If delete this article, there must be section "Human rights of ethnic minorities" in Human rights in China. Acxle (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This page can be merged and redirected to either of those two pages (Ethnic issues in China, Human rights in China); much of what is covered in the Human rights of ethnic minorities in China article can be covered in those two pages. The topic is a legitimate and notable topic, however the amount of information presently available would probably suffice as an article section, rather than a standalone page. If the content becomes expanded in the future so that it becomes too large, it can be split off into an independent page again. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as per Benlisquare comments. This shouldn't really have been posted as an Afd as duplication is not a reason to delete. See Wikipedia:Merge for how to deal with duplicated topics. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Acxle (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Article violates WP:LINKFARM, WP:SOAP and WP:RS for alot of its content, such as Dr. Paul George and Habib Siddiqui's articles (they have absolutely no credentials in the area). Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a certain cause or agenda. The article is essentially a one sided, random criticism of China thrown together without any context. If the article gets merged, most of the content on the merged article is going to get deleted anyway since it already violates WP:SOAP and WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Rajmaan, that WP:LINKFARM and WP:SOAP are not valid reasons for deletion and while WP:RS is a valid reason, it is not shown that there are no possible reliable sources, only that many of the current sources are not reliable. Delete in the context of a Afd does not mean delete the content rewrite a better article later. An Afd deletion means there will be no article with that title at all; not now and not in the future either. Before deleting, we should look to see if an article can be improved. If it can, then that is the course of action, even if every line or text is replaced and even if it takes years to do. It may be suitable to incubate an article while it is improved. Alternatively, write a quick stub and place that over the existing article thus removing the content you find objectionable until a longer article develops. A third option is to blank and redirect. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Substantially covered in numerous sources such as Equality, autonomy, and development: The pattern of protection of the human rights of ethnic minorities in China Xinhua Chubanshe 1998 as well as other book sources. Also numerous articles on this subject. Sufficiently distinct from human rights issues although there is some overlap. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially covered in numerous sources has nothing to do with the current article. The article, as it stands, is a badly written non-POV compilation of attacks on China, promoting a certain POV, a linkfarm, and sourced with articles written by people who have zero credentials in the area. If you feel you have reliable sources, then rewrite the article yourself after the current one is deleted. The source you just named is not currently being used in the article, it is a red herring to say the topic of the article is notable and well covered in sources not even used in the article, while the current article is written horribly.Rajmaan (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge if there's content worth keeping where the topic is already covered, as stated above. As it stands, the article is a fork and a soapbox. --Cold Season (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the title. There should be an article on this topic. Topic ban for User:Acxle for linking news stories that abuse the facts to summary that abuses the sources further. [1] and [2] The facts scream out at this tortuous treatment. China allows two children per family in rural areas. All rural areas. To everyone. http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f13d6f42.pdf The article claims not just the reverse, but that a specific group, Han, are given two in a specific area, Xinjiang, while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one. An article on Islamic terrorism is used to justify this rich and complex falsehood. Either way you slice it, whether as bad faith or some sort of excellent ineptitude, this is harmful to the encyclopedia. Same for the sentence at the end of the article: An article which unwisely uses its mind-reading powers to discern a "hint" in a speech, is turned by the article summary into a fact. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy as "keeping" a title, the policy is, that if the topic is notable but the article written about it violates policy, we delete the existing article and someone can create a new, neutral, non-POV article on the topic.Rajmaan (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchangel: "while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one" Where are you getting this information from? It's quite contradictory to well sourced information on other articles. Non-Han ethnics are not limited by the one-child policy, according to Affirmative action in China and related pages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what Anarchangel said, he explaining that what Acxle wrote is wrong.Rajmaan (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge then Redirect per Benlisquare and Rincewind42's comments. As for "keeping" the title, if it becomes a redirect it is automatically "kept".  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Rajmaan created Chinese propaganda articles: Migration to Xinjiang, User:Rajmaan/Migration to Xiniiang. What is purpose of these articles? Are these aricles necessary? There are many articles about human rights in Tibet but very few articles created for other ethnic minorities.

• Human rights in Tibet
• International Campaign for Tibet
• Protests and uprisings in Tibet since 1950
• Sinicization of Tibet
• Tibetan independence movement

Acxle (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make double votes, as this makes it difficult to gauge the number of editors in support of each side and could be perceived as cheating the system. As for Migration to Xinjiang, there is no similar overlap with existing pages, and I'm not sure why you called it a "Chinese propaganda page", given that you are more than free (and I would encourage you) to add the Uyghur viewpoint in an NPOV manner into that article. I do think that more coverage on human rights of ethnic minorities in China other than the Tibetans is necessary, but we must consider the availability of reliable sources (which, by the way, a very large number of yours I don't consider to be). If there are a very large number of reliable sources covering what is clearly a very salient issue in popular discourse, then make it a separate page dealing specifically with the region/ethnicity, like "human rights of Uyghurs". If not, then integrate it into existing pages like human rights in China and Uyghur people. What I don't think is necessary is a separate page specifically on the human rights of ethnic minorities in China in general, especially since as it stands now that page more or less deals exclusively with the Uyghurs. Hope this clarifies my position. M. Caecilius (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reject User:Acxle's ad hominem attack (see WP:NPA). In fact, what I wrote on the article Migration to Xinjiang is the exact opposite of Chinese historiography. In China, the Qing attack on the Zunghars is viewed as a heroic endeavor by the Qianlong Emperor while the Zunghar Khan Amursana is villified as a rebel. Mongols have called out China on this issue, China downplays the Qing genocide of the Zunghars while I created an entire Zunghar genocide article, and if I was a historian in China, I could potentially be permanently banned from academia for that. And in fact only one source used in the article is from China. Is Acxle suggesting that western historians who work at western universities like Professor James A. Millward, Peter C. Perdue, Christian Tyler, and Ildikó Bellér-Hann are Chinese propagandists?Rajmaan (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acxle's characterization of Rajmaan's article Migration to Xinjiang as Chinese propaganda is utter nonsense. In that article Rajmaan covers extensively the important and often neglected Zunghar genocide, probably not one of the most glorious moments in Chinese history. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to Ethnic issues in China. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK that contains little useful information that hasn't been covered in other articles. -Zanhe (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Benlisquare comments, possibly merge into both articles. Looking over the laundry of arguments on all sides, this article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:LINKFARM but the subject matter is clearly notable and something worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. I personally don't see a legitimate deletion reason stated at all but there are some very good arguments for a merge. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:03, 24 May 2014 (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.