Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community of shared future for mankind

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. This keep decision does not preclude a possible merge elsewhere, which can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community of shared future for mankind[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)

Vague concept that's isn't discussed in detail by third-party sources Pontificalibus 07:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion. Wikipedia generally only reflects western perspectives on China. If Wikipedia genuinely wants to be of international significance, it's important to include other perspectives as well.

This initiative is of potential importance to the whole planet. It has been widely reported in Chinese, for example by the BBC ^[1] No doubt in time, as the impact becomes clearer, other contributors will expand the article in English, making it more specific. I hope that will answer CASSIOPEIA's concern about it being too vague. Thrall22 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/indepth-38655017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thrall22. Although I cannot speak Chinese, if the BBC has given it an in-depth piece (which is almost enough for notability on its own) we can assume that it has been covered in more detail by Chinese media. An alternative would be to redirect to a section of Xi Jinping or Xi Jinping Thought. Catrìona (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is already biased towards English language sources. It's clearly discussed by multiple independent commentators. We dont have any policy against vagueness. Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on Xi Jinping. Novel terms used by politicians have to possess a great deal of notability to make it onto their own, separate, Wikipedia article. We sometimes forget that notability on its own is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge and not an indiscriminate collection of information items. In a few years, the subject may have a different level of notoriety; for now, on its own, this is too soon -The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 19 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.

[1] ttps://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/indepth-38655017

[1]