Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine[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)

No such proof that China has "invaded" Ukraine. At best this is Crystal ball and propaganda. At worst this is complete and total fake news as this hasn't happened. CaribDigita (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CaribDigita (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom is inaccurate as the article does not claim that China participated in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Rather, this is an article about how China has reacted to the invasion and what attitudes have been taken by the Chinese government, media, and citizens toward it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you go back to March 2022 when this article was written, the terminology at the time - at least the buzz phrase used by the media - was "China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine" So I would not quite call it "Crystal ball and propaganda", as that's how the general media saw it then. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first link that turns up: "SOAS" is just an event title. By "a public research university in London, England, and a member institution of the federal University of London."

Those are all the same three sources over and over.

First one is a government owned agency of the UK.

Second one is a government owned agency of Canada.

The third is just J.P. Morgan investor.

And the rest are mirrors of the first three podcast and all.

And actually that's the very epitome of propaganda (Definition @ Merriam-Webster).

Is there any truth that China is *in* Ukraine per the title "Chana & the Russian **invasion** of Ukraine"? CaribDigita (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don’t understand this nom at all. It seems obvious but here are recent news refs covering the topic: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The topic meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator seems to have misunderstood the article title. It's not parsed as "(China and Russia's) invasion of Ukraine" but "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- How many countries are invading Ukraine? Is my point. "AND" is a conjunction. It should probably be the 'Role of (X-country) in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine' that would be more grammatically correct. CaribDigita (talk) CaribDigita (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only country that is invading Ukraine is Russia. By using "Role of China in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine", it suggests that China is playing a *role* and are *directly involved* in the invasion of Ukraine; it is even more misleading than the original title and defeats your main argument. There is nothing Grammatically incorrect or improper about "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)". Vincenty846 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It makes it sound as though Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine. Which I haven't seen any evidence of? Have you? CaribDigita (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, it doesn't. Just because the title "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)" sounds that way to *YOU*, doesn't mean that it is true for others. There is *nothing* in the article that states what you are suggesting (i.e. "Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine"), because factually it is incorrect and false information; which mind you does not belong on any Wikipedia article.

You can try and twist the words with your own opinions and ask as many rhetorical questions as you want; but it still doesn't change the fact that "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)" is proper and grammatically correct. Vincenty846 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems like the nominator has misunderstood the title of the article. The nominator’s argument that “No such proof that China has "invaded" Ukraine” is irrelevant to the title and content of the article because the article is about the *reactions and responses* of China to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. There is nothing in the article that states nor suggests that China has invaded Ukraine with Russia. There is also an article on United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, does that mean that the U.S. is also involved with Russia and invading Ukraine?-Vincenty846(talk) 12:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article title is being misinterpreted. We also have article titled Anonymous, Collective responsibility in Russia, Iran, Lithuania, Religion, United States, and Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, none of which are implied to have invaded.[6] And there are other variations with “in” or “X-ian involvement in,” “in the Russo-Ukrainian War,” etcetera. If the problem is an inappropriate title, then an RM is appropriate, not an AFD. —Michael Z. 22:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:SNOW close Per above comments. Definitely a notable topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2023 (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.