Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuidang movement

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuidang movement[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)

This page lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent source to substantiate notability per WP:GNG and is not verifiable per WP:V. Specifically:

1) Of the sources cited in the article, the only ones that actually mention the Tuidang movement are:
- The archived webpage for the listing of the Tuidang movement on the www.placestogoinnewyork.com website. This is self-published and not an RS.
- The Tuidang Homepage. This is self-published and not an RS.
- The Epoch Times. This is not an independent RS for political controversies involving Falun Gong (see the consensus on this issue in the discussion here).
- Scholarly articles quoting the Epoch Times, where the Epoch Times quote is the part that is being used in the article (e.g., Patricia Thornton, Manufacturing Dissent in Transnational China in "Popular Protest in China").
- an article in The Christian Science Monitor written by a former Epoch Times reporter and admitted FLG activist. The problems with the independence of an article written by a self-admitted Falun Gong activist are self-explanatory.

2) The remaining sources on the page do not mention the Tuidang movement, but are instead related to the 'Nine Commentaries' and the oppression of Falun Gong in general. Separate articles already exist for both of these subjects which contain all the subject matter discussed on the Tuidang movement page.

3) A further search as part of WP:BEFORE brings up only sources quoting the Epoch Times or Falun Gong activists.

4) As a final note, whilst we cannot edit original research into pages on Wiki, anyone with knowledge of China will find the idea that 300 million people, or even 195 million, have quit the communist party (or even simply declared their opposition to it) patently ridiculous, since its membership is much less than both of these figures and these figures would constitute 20-30% of the population of the PRC. However, at the very least we can say that the claim that there is a movement within Chinese society to quit the Chinese communist party is an extraordinary one, and as such (per WP:FRINGE) requires more to substantiate it than is presented here. Evidence of individual people quitting the CCP is not enough, since there is no sign that they do so as part of any movement. FOARP (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the proposer of the AfD has done their research, and non-primary or non-secondary reliable sources are hard to near impossible to come by. There is a resolution about the subject during the 115th United States Congress, but that is insufficient to establish notability. If there was an article about opposition to or criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, such content as are in the article which is the subject of the AfD would fall under its scope. That said, given the lack of non-primary reliable sources which give the subject significant coverage I have to say it is WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:38, 15 December 2018 (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.