Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of voting results of the National People's Congress 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of voting results of the National People's Congress of China[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:IINFO. This is because it satisfies definition 3 which is "Excessive listings of statistics. Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context. Long recitations of statistics reduce readability and may be confusing. Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012) consider placing them in tables to enhance readability; where large quantities are not appropriate (e.g. the main article United States presidential election, 2012) omit excess statistics and summarize." The article is also WP:LISTCRUFT. This is because it is meanings #12, #8, #4 and #2. KAP03 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unclear to me what some of these tables are even referring to. A limited amount of this information could be useful in the main article to illustrate the rubberstamp, but it is not appropriate by itself per nom. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved enough. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upon improvements I would urge user Jacehu2012 to use some time to improve the article by writing some prose associated with the lists. As a regular observer of Chinese politics the results on this list were fascinating to me - for example you can see which governments had higher approval ratings. You can also see that even within China's one party system the Supreme Court had very low approval ratings between 2008 and 2013, but has since recovered after reforms.
User Jacehu2012 has been frustrating to work with generally, because he does not respond to messages nor does he care to copyedit the articles to an acceptable standard, which results in a lot of copyediting work for seasoned Wikipedia editors like myself. Colipon+(Talk) 17:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from creator Jacehu2012 Please forgive me that I had just seen the advices Colipon (talk · contribs) gave to me on 27 December, and I truly want to make efforts on adding more prose to this article to avoid being deleted. As you see, this article is useful for any observers of PRC politics because even though these all voting results can be found on the official website of the National People's Congress of China, they always don't appeared in the news of social media, so most of people today in another countries, even in China, still consider the NPC as an "useless parliament" which all delegates are totally agreed with the government, and this is not true------as you see, the Supreme Court always received low approval rates these years, and people who work for the Court are also concerned that if they received less percentage each year, which proves that the voting results of NPC are still give pressure to the government and the ruling party, although China are still a one party country. At last, I promise that more informations will be put into the article and improved annually, so please don't delect it, thank you and HAPPY NEW YEAR, I think we can talk more about PRC politics or other things in the future.
Updated by User Jacehu2012 from Beijing, China on 30 December 2016
This is an interesting case. I agree with Colipon that it's a fascinating and historically important look inside the workings of the congress of the PRC -- a government of no small importance, globally. I ask myself, what is this like? I haven't been able to find a similar list for congressional voting records from the world's other economic superpower. But federal and state elections in the US are exhaustively documented with articles, lists, templates and categories. In the UK, the closest I can find is Motions of no confidence in the United Kingdom (in that any significant deviation from unanimous approval in the PRC system is significant, I believe). ~~The list is completely unreferenced and that's a concern~~. But I would argue it's a highly notable topic, a look at the congressional process of the world's other great power, whose inner workings are I daresay underrepresented here. Having just read the article, I feel like I have a little better understanding of the machinations of this 'rubber stamp', where the nuances of votes are important . I say it's notable, far from trivial or a meaningless set of stats. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no longer unreferenced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If some more context were added (perhaps from National People's Congress), it would be even more clear, but this looks really notable to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:37, 31 December 2016 (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.