Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign political events with the interference of Communist Party of China

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. I think the last rationale is the most succinct one here - as it (and others) have pointed out, unless the article pulled together every occasion on which China was involved in another countries' affairs (which would be a ludicrously long article) this is effectively OR. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign political events with the interference of Communist Party of China[edit]

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

This article has various problems. It is encyclopedic; written from a biased and a non Neutral point of view; with unclear criteria of selection; some entries being trivial or normal in any society; highly speculative with more assumptions than proven facts; it has a journalistic sensationalist tone and unreliable sources. If we are talking about foreign affairs Hong Kong and Macau shouldn't be in this article, those entities being part of China, so it is an internal issue and again the tone is biased and speculative with unproven assumptions. Daduxing (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Favor deletion: As per above, plus

The article cannot meet the suggestions for alternatives to deletion at WP:ATD, such as editing or merging because "interference" cannot be defined neutrally. The article is POV by its very nature.
A search of Wilkipedia interference of finds no other article for any other country. I do not see, for instance, List of foreign political events with the interference of Russia or List of foreign political events with the interference of the United States. Maybe this search is not correctly framed, or material may exist within another article, but I do not see it. ::ch (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: You may delete the content there is not with reasonable citation. However, many of the events listed were with reliable citation, and were included in other WikiPedia article. Hong Kong and Macau is regarded as not Part of China in many technical context. The reason of listing the respective incidents are therefore justified. Hong Kong and Macau are not only internal affairs of China, but also places that should be protected by international treaties. An ignorance of the treaties should also be considered as interfenence of affairs of the other treaty-signing country.Universehk (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: The title is a bit biased, It should say 'involvement' instead of 'interference' as interference is too broad. Actually there a a page similar to foreign events with the interference of the United states and its United States involvement in regime change. I don't see a proposal to delete that page. While inclusion of Macau and Hong Kong is debatable, there plenty of reasonable citation in major international events and if there is any highly speculative entries, those entries can be deleted on said grounds, but not the entire wikipedia page. DoctorHell(talk) 06:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) This is not only about the sources. It's about the tone of the article. As an example look at the first entry. Some students showing their opinion (nothing wrong with that, we are not here to judge them), the consulate is supporting its citizens (it’s the consulate/embassy job anyway). So what’s wrong here? Oh, it is about that villainous China with her evil CCP! They surely have an evil master plan to corrupt the minds of the free Aussies. See, we are making some biased, highly speculative and unproven assumptions, writing them from a non NPOV. And this is the case with most the informations from this this article. Sure this can make a sensationalistic (click-bite) MSM news, but it’s inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

2) Saying that HK/Macau is not part of China is like saying that the State of California is not part of the US. (Yes Universehk, I know about the „treaties”) Daduxing (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes the tone of the article could be argued as biased, thats the reason there is an NPOV dispute template put in place. In regards to the first entry, it is very puzzling why would a consulate get involved in an internal university affair in the first place, the characterization of the sources being "sensationalistic (click-bite)" is an opinion, while others would think of those sources as highly reputable sources. DoctorHell(talk) 17:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - fails WP:NOR, WP:NEUTRAL, and WP:NLIST. As one of the major powers in the world, China probably exerts some influence on most important political events happening anywhere, and so do the US, EU, and Russia, for that matter. There's no point listing an indiscriminate collection of events that may or may not be influenced by Communist China. -Zanhe (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, the article is just describing the state actor interference of foreign events. Shall this article be deleted, this one also need deletion United_States_involvement_in_regime_change -黑武士仲尼 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) Do you see any regime changes in the Chinese article like in the US one? We are talking about two different aspects/activities. Besides the sources of the article about America are the books and scholars, but the sources regarding China are the news sites, which are problematic for the reasons specified above. 2) DoctorHell that tag there if for you to fix the problem, not to justify it or accept it --Daduxing (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDaduxing, before attempted say there are no pages with similar activities and now there is one you attempt to justify they are different. It's similar activities under a different name. During the Cold War, USA and its allies sponsored 'Regime change' to gain sphere of influence as well as Russia and China and its allies, there plenty of examples in this article. Many other wikipedia pages uses news sites as sources. Blaming one user for failing 'to fix the problem' is not justifiable reason for deletion. DoctorHell(talk) 16:34, 5 November (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list with no clear criteria. There's everything here from China participating in multilateral talks, China selling arms, alleged Chinese spies, Chinese businessman making donations, stuff about HK and Macau which probably doesn't qualify as foreign. Many of these things are things that most countries do, but this article is hopelessly non-neutral. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting and sourced list. The criteria for inclusion are more or less clear. The existence of the page is consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, although it can be improved. One could argue this content could be merged to Politics of China or elsewhere, but it is better served by the standalone list. The list can be renamed to something better, but this is a different question. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2017 (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.