Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qing conquest theory

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. Sandstein 08:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qing conquest theory[edit]

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

WP:Or and WP:SYN. No theory of such name seems to exist (see also here), the article is rather pieced together in synthetical fashion from various references none devoted mainly to the topic. The relevant core about the Qing's stagnancy could easily be covered in other articles such as on the dynasty itself, if it has not already long happened. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The OR and synthesis are clear, but an additional concern is the use of Wikipedia to promote a term no-one else is using: a Google search for this phrase throws up thousands of hits, but as near as I can tell every one of those hits comes from Wikipedia and its derivatives. This seems to be a classic case of WP:NEOLOGISM. Kanguole 23:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (though willing to be persuaded) - hmm, this appears to be tricky but it is not. The theory as described in the article can certainly be found in the literature and is even taught in some relevant classes at the college level, at least sometimes. The basic story can be found in numerous reliable sources, some of which (Allen, Maddison, Pomeranz refers to the theory though he disagrees) are already in the article. The main question is really whether the title "Qing conquest theory" is appropriate. I'm only familiar with English language sources on the topic and it is true that this particular title is not generally used, AFAIK. However, there appear to be numerous Chinese language sources in the article, and while I cannot read them it does look like at least some of them are reliable, so perhaps the title is a translation from a term that is used in Chinese literature. I'm voting "Keep" because the theory presented in the article is definitely not WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The title of the article might be, but then it needs to be moved, not deleted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - huh, I just noticed that the two users here - the creator of the article and the nominator of this AfD have some kind of long running bad blood feud [1]. Aren't you guys under an interaction ban with each other something (if not, perhaps you should be)? And then, the first comment on this AfD was made by Kanguole who was canvassed by GPM to comment here [2], and given his previous comments on the article page, I'm sure GPM had the expectation of getting exactly what he got when he left that message on Kanguole's talk page, a delete vote (for the record, I'm actually not opposed to canvassing, but it is what it is). This whole thing's starting to smell a bit fishy to me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing fishy here. I canvassed both Kanguole and Teeninvestor who hold opposing views then. Since noone else participated on talk, I notified nobody else. That makes me almost Solomonic, I guess. Correction: I overlooked the user with the red box, well that happens when one uses extravagant designs. I am going to notify him too. Well, he is blocked. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except you're perfectly aware that one of these two is not active on Wikipedia anymore (since apparently you had something to do with him leaving), and only one would respond. It's a bit strange to call this "Solomonic" - crafty, yes, but not "Solomonic". Anyway, I started an AN/I thread on this for those interested.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my fault that the two users who would possibly support the article are blocked or have left the project. I think we should get back to the business of discussing the article, not users. This is no soap box for conspiracy theories. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NEOLOGISM says, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." This is one of these cases that calls for a descriptive phrase-title, although I don't think promoting a neologism was article creator's intent; the title is in lowercase, so it seems like a terse try at a descriptive title that unfortunately looks like a neologism. The theory that this article describes is definitely attested to in multiple reliable sources, so the title just needs rejiggering, which happens at the talk page and not AfD. Quigley (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the reliable sources in which this theory (under whatever name) is documented? The sources referenced in the article are not presentations of this theory; they are used as pieces of evidence that the article author has assembled to support his thesis. This is not a description of an existing theory, with accounts of different scholars' versions of it. Kanguole 08:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reference verifies the information given in the article. This is true of any reference on any article. This does not appear to be simply a thesis, and I have seen no evidence on this AfD that it is. The sources are reliable, third-party sources that both verify the information in the article and show notability of the article's subject. The only thing this article is arguably failing in is a correct title, but an AfD is not the place for that. - SudoGhost ™ 08:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veryifying the information in the article is not enough. Which are the references that show notability of the article's subject? Kanguole 08:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones supposedly fail to show the notability of the subject? Because all of them seem to show the notability of the subject. - SudoGhost ™ 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them support pieces of evidence for the theory assembled in the article. None of them show that the theory exists elsewhere. Kanguole 09:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Kanguole. The crucial difference between a theory discussed as such by scholarship and one which is merely assembled by synthesizing loosely related material seems to be lost to many users. It's inclusionist time these days in WP, nearly anything goes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanguole and Gun Powder Ma are mistaken. They should read the articles cited again.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to meet Wikipedia's policies on notability and other criteria. Articles can be renamed. - SudoGhost ™ 05:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do not delete articles because of a dispute on the wording of the title, & there isn't really any other basis for deletion. . It strikes me as reasonably neutral and descriptive, but if a better one can be found ,nothing here would prevent a modification. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are no major issues with the article content that specifically require deletion as a means of solving the issue; the title can be renamed to a more suitable name, where everyone sees fit. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not a synthesis. The following articles advance the hypothesis described in the Wikipedia article.
- [http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/7656 People learn history as the threshold under the Western Great Divergence - "Tianjin Social Science", No. 6 2005.
- [http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/17535 The late Ming: the beginning of China's early modernization - "Ming and Qing," No. 5, 2008. --Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles support some of the arguments assembled by the article. That's not the same as establishing notability of this theory. Kanguole 13:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the AFD was proposed on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYN, and the two Chinese scholarly articles cited show that neither WP:OR nor WP:SYN applies to this Wikipedia article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To write an article about something, in this case a purported theory of economic history, one needs reliable sources that discuss that thing. If instead one takes a collection of sources that one believes are instances of that thing and seeks to extract common themes from them, that is indeed synthesis and original research. Lacking the necessary foundation of a topic recognized in the literature, the result is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Kanguole 09:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a course about this specific theory almost 25 years ago at the University of Calgary, so how can this theory be original research or a synthesis? I'm sorry, but this comes across as a particularly nasty form of wikihounding and not at all in the spirit of the encyclopedia. No reason to AFD; no reason to delete. --NellieBly (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just guessing here, but is it possible that that course dealt with the general question of why China fell behind the West, rather than the specific theory presented in this article? Kanguole 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem to be OR or SYNTH. He iro 01:38, 11 July 2011 (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.