Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Federal State 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 no consensus. It appears that the sourcing exists to support an independent article, but ultimately it is an editorial decision whether to merge the various articles on proposals for a federal China, which doesn't have to be decided at AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New Federal State of China[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)

Cross-wiki spamming. Mys_721tx (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavily re-write or TNT. It's a notable subject - a proposed new government for China made by emigres and Steve Bannon that has received WP:SIGCOV in recent months (see, e.g., 1 2 3) and will likely continue to receive some coverage. However, as it stand the article is POV garbage and as the nom says, spam. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my User Talk, my page has reputable secondary independent sources, namely, Taiwan News which is established in 1949, Asia Power Watch launched in 2019 by Nicolas Michelon who is a 20-year veteran of Asia-Pacific business, finance and economic research, NTD News which is based in New York with correspondents in over 70 cities worldwide, Mr. Stephen Kevin Bannon's own Youtube Channel, etc.) --Tigmo9098 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Wikipedia does not tolerate trash talk and bad behavior ruin its reputation. Thanks for your helpful attention. --Tigmo9098 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NTD is not an RS, neither is Taiwan News really if you're familiar with it. Bannon's Youtube channel is also not a reliable source. Reliance on these sources for points of fact is part of why the article needs a heavy re-write. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or back to Draft, indeed cross-wiki spamming and lacks of reliable sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've attempted a re-write. There are reliable sources covering the declaration and their coverage does amount to enough content to fill a small article. My main concern at the moment is whether this article covering what ultimately is an WP:EVENT is going to be WP:LASTING, but this will take some months to become clear. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Report Abuse - There is an on-going deletion of sections of my entry. Now it is reduced to three paragraphs. --Tigmo9098 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting parts of the article that are written in unencyclopedic fashion relying on unreliable sources and replacing them with better-written text relying on better sources is simply part of the editing process. If you don't want to let people improve this article, you are going to have a hard time stopping it being deleted in this AFD. If you feel that people are "abusing" you, you are free to report them at WP:ANI. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi..NOT agree delete this article. Fox News , NYPost and NYtimes all report the The New Federal State of China ..its fact that real happened in real world, delete this article is against wiki’s neutral rule .. maybe some part need improve.. but NOT delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.254.68 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely rewrite or delete - at the moment it is mostly pure promotion and reads like a press release for the originators.Orenburg1 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete unless can’t be rewritten - receiving coverage, but needs to be rewritten drastically and needs editors to go about hunting for reliable citations. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite- The subject is receiving coverage from media, but article needs clearer citations and much of the content initially in the article before it was removed was unsourced. Wikipedians could go looking for citations to improve the article. Heyoostorm (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be a subsection of an article discussing 爆料革命 (with the article title being Baoliao geming / Whistleblower Movement / Exposé Revolution / whatever translation is the most common in the press), or put the article back into draft space. As per the equivalent Chinese wiki article, this is a small part of a larger movement. There seems to be significant media coverage for The New Federal State of China, but describing it as a government in exile or a micronation is misrepresenting what the group actually is/how it functions. In an article Steve Bannon calls it a government, but describes it as an advocacy group, and the WSJ calls it a campaign. Based on the sources, this group doesn't seem to function anything like a government/govt in exile/micronation at all (yet - it might do in the future but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL). --Prosperosity (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human rights in China, or delete; this group appears to exist as a political statement of criticism of human rights in China. BD2412 T 03:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No good WP:DELREASON or merger reason is stated here. Human rights in China is a massive topic and the article is clearly already too big. Whilst this involves some people who are also involved in the Whistleblower movement, others involved in the declaration (e.g., Hao) are different. "Government in exile" is just a descriptor used in the article and can be replaced with any other descriptor through ordinary editing - I think the topic is essentially an WP:EVENT in nature. A distinct WP:GNG notability for this topic separate to Human rights in China and the Whistleblower Movement has already been established - I've got doubts about how WP:SUSTAINED coverage will be, but that will take months to become clear. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human rights in China with chance of recreation later when it's actually a thing and not just being mentioned in the news because Bannon is associated with it. If it wasn't for that, I doubt it would have gotten any national coverage at all and notability isn't by association. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. That something is notable for a particular reason (because Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui are behind it) doesn't mean it cannot be notable. A piece of music is not automatically non-notable because it was written by a couple of notable musicians. No-one here is trying to argue WP:INHERITED notability - the subject is clearly standing on its own two legs in the coverage of it. Finally, the connection of this subject to human rights in China is basically non-existent and the Human rights in China article is already way too long even if it was connected to it - discussing this topic on that page would also clearly be WP:UNDUE. FOARP (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me. Most of the coverage seems to have happened within the week span of a single event in early June. The flying of a banner in New York that said “Congratulations to Federal State of New China!”. That's mostly it. To take a quote from someone in one of the articles, who happens to be the Asia advocacy director at the nonprofit Human Rights Watch BTW, ""None of us have any idea what the f is going on,” he tweeted after consulting his colleagues. “Apparently it has something to do with Steve Bannon but it still makes no sense.”" Now, does "I don't know what's going on, but hey Steve Bannon is involved in it somehow" sound like something that's notable on it's own or something that's notable because of the connection to Steve Bannon? Not to me. Especially when someone like the Asia advocacy director at the nonprofit Human Rights Watch is only tweeting about it because of Bannon being involved. If some random person flew the same banner over a small Midwestern town would it have gotten any national coverage? Probably not. The articles are clear it only did because of Steve Bannon. Otherwise, people like the one I quoted would have just been confused for a minute and gone about their day. The fact that there wasn't sustained coverage of it after the week of the banner waving proves that. It also means the whole thing violates the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. If it was actually meaningful (sourcing wise) beyond being a Bannon stunt news outlets would still be covering it and without mention it's connection to Bannon repeatedly, but they aren't. So it's not. Again, no one even seems to have known what it was or cared about it except for that. That is the definition of WP:INHERITED notability. It doesn't matter if people are trying to argue it or not. My point was that it's the only reason it's being covered as a topic. Last time I checked we are evaluating notability based on the sources, not on the AfD discussion. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:EVENT-type article so I think it's right to ask whether it will be lasting, but we won't know that for a while longer (per WP:LASTING it takes months for this to become known, and it's plausible that more might come out of this) and it is still being talked about (in the WSJ no less - which notably gives Guo Wengui and Bannon equal billing). People saying it's something to do with Bannon doesn't mean it should be redirected to his article since he is quite possibly not the most important person involved (Guo Wengui might well be, as he is a billionaire and is also mentioned repeatedly in connection with it, or Hao or any of the others). Asking "would this be notable if it weren't for the things that make it notable?" seems unlikely to result in productive debate. FOARP (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few things, first obviously everything "might" get lasting coverage when it gets lasting coverage. That's just circular reasoning though and it's not the point of WP:EVENT anyway. What is if this has lasting a lasting effect and that just can't be determined right now. My opinion is that it won't, but my opinion doesn't matter. What does is that like WP:EVENT says "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Which it's currently WP:TOSOON to tell and recreation when (or if) it does become a lasting event occurs. A single news source that has had a sustained far right anti-Chinese bent for a while now continuing to beat a dead horse about it doesn't count as sustained coverage IMO. It has to be multiple sources and especially neutral ones. I'm fine with using the Wall Street Journal for this in tandem with other sources, but not on it's own. The same goes for a single left leaning news paper being the only one continuing to cover a left leaning event though. There just has to be more then that.

Second, I assume the article is about an event or WP:EVENT and WP:TOSOON wouldn't matter. Plus, the article is called "The New Federal State of China", not "Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui's The New Federal State of China." So the notability isn't about them. It's about the The New Federal State of China and the events surrounding it. Otherwise, it should just be mentioned in Steve Bannon's or Guo Wengui article. This isn't at all comparable to something like the plane crash of Buddy Holly or the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash where it's appropriate to have separate articles from the celebrates involved because the events themselves had lasting impact. No one except the Wall Street Journal is continuing to carry this and even then not a bunch. As is, it was obviously a failed anti-Chinese publicity stunt that went no where. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it doesn't meet the notability standard in it's current state. Like I said, it's not like it can't be recreated when or if it does get more long-term coverage in sources besides the WSJ. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are already 2 existing articles like this one. United States of China and Federal Republic of China. This new one should probably be merged under those articles. It'd actually be best to merge all three articles into one comprehensive article... there's absolutely no need to have 3 articles on Wikipedia all talking about possibility of federal China. Makes little sense.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good call. It looks like the sources for the other two are kind of questionable, but they would probably all be notable enough as a single "federal China" topic with it's own article. Someone just needs to create one I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2020 (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.