410:(with some minor reservations) - I will accept that, at first sight, the title gives the impression of crystal-balling. However the article doesn't engage in speculation - it is an accumulation of sourced facts bearing on China's international power. I have some concerns over layout (the points for/against) and, given its title, there is the risk that it will encourage POV/OR editing. However I offset this against the number of excellent editors who are doing a creditable job in keeping it clean. I would suggest though that thought be given to orienting the article more towards the opinions of IR academics rather than a simple presentation of facts (per
524::While I am not particularly fond of the insane , militant and oppressive Government of the People's Republic (though they have calmed down somewhat thanks to Xiaopeng and after) it is a fact that the PRC is an emerging superpower, both militarily and economically. Lots of sources support the claim that PRC is an emergent superpower. Regardless of the quality of the article the subject of PRC as an emergent superpower is noteworthy enough to warrant an article on wikipedia. If the nominator feels that the article is "too much like an essay" then he is free to try and fix it.
115:- I just spent an enjoyable and thought provoking 20 minutes browsing the listed article. I saw no NPOV issues, and learned quite a bit which I would not have gleaned from any of the other China related pages. It is one of the best cited articles on Knowledge (XXG), and should absolutely be kept. I'd like to get this debate wrapped up quickly so the Deletion tag can be removed. It drastically misrepresents the article's status.
332:. I believe all these comments about the quality of the article are missing the point. The point is not that it's badly written. It's not. The point it is that it's currently a position paper, not an encyclopedic article. Even the title is POV. One can write the most persuasive, most elegantly written paper in the world, and it would still be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --
205:
they're also reporters are not reliable sources on China, and the source is actually presenting opinions as weasel-worded facts, see reference 110.) My suggestion is 1) slap an NPOV tag on it, 2) cut it down to a more reasonable length and clear out all the OR, and 3) monitor it carefully for edit wars. I'm not sure if deletion is the answer, as there are many sources.
254:
X believes that factors A,B,C are reasons why China is an emerging superpower and reliable source Y believes that factors D,E,F are reasons why China will have problems in the future. In other words, the author(s) do not need to prove that the factors A,B,C,D,E,F are true. They need to prove that
246:
I agree with ColourBurst. Deletion is the last resort solution to the OR problem in this otherwise well-written article. The OR problem is that the parts that are verifiable are the facts and this article appears to synthesize the facts into a comprehensive theory. This makes it a good piece of
484:
It used to be China as a potential superpower, but what's the point of making an article just because a nation has potential. Then we would have less reason to delete articles made by people who just wanted to make their country look good, as many countries have "potential", to be "emerging" is a
474:
It's all crystal ball-ish. However, so are a number of articles related to global warming. This kind of prognostication is important and therefore encyclopedic. I would focus less on the title and more on getting the article to survey the opinions of reliable sources rather than trying to be a
204:
I'm concerned about original research here; for example, it does use facts about China, but the facts are meant to be persuasive about its influence, not informative. There's also a concern about the reliability of some of the sourcing (forexblog, an expat blog, is used even though expats unless
595:: I don't think this article has a serious POV problem, as it clearly shows multiple sides of this issue. This is an issue that has been talked about in the media in recent times, and therefore it need not consist of original research (although it may have some now that needs to be removed).
455:
These articles (China/India/EU) have gone through a number of variations on a theme of 'potential superpower' or 'emerging superpower' - either way the title looks crystal-ballish (even if the article itself isn't). I don't really have any alternative suggestion (sorry) but I think that any
97:. It is an article of long standing, is well-referenced and represents the efforts of a lot of editors. The cure for POV, which I do not see at a quick glance, is not deletion but adding counter points and editing POV to NPOV.
510:
i.e. move and delete old name instead of redirect. The article may be good, but the title isn't. In many publications China is already listed as a superpower. Just for example from 1999:
349:
As a long time contributor I have worked hard to convert these articles to NPOV and avoid OR. I do not believe it deserves deletion as it is a notable discussion point in modern society.
148:
and a tone that sometimes makes this read more like a brochure for potential investors than an encyclopaedia article. The tone and title might need a look, but this is just too good, and
544:
305:
379:
536:
The basic idea is fine. The problem is that the article needs a lot of work to get up to scratch. It should have separate sections for the main topics
144:
The title does suggest an unencyclopaedic essay, but the article covers a lot while sticking to the facts. There are some problems, such as occasional
286:
557:
391:— The topic is supported by multiple reputable sources. I don't see this as a PoV essay. Instead I'd like to see a comparable article on India. —
17:
627:
611:
599:
587:
570:
528:
516:
496:
479:
467:
446:
425:
402:
383:
360:
341:
324:
296:
265:
232:
209:
196:
136:
107:
80:
52:
553:
434:
58:
540:- then there can be for/against views inside. The current for/anti titles allow for too much repitition or contradiction.
642:
36:
304:. Well sourced, well written, notable subject, and hardly any POV violations except for a few weasel words. Has been
641:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
223:
98:
49:
511:
182:
582:
375:
370:
116:
608:
145:
568:
541:
255:
reliable sources, X,Y,Z believe that these factors are relevant and significant to the question.
476:
411:
262:
153:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
579:
396:
206:
64:
487:
485:
state of actual movement to the status of superpower and is harder to make an article on.
351:
282:
251:
624:
596:
149:
561:
442:
337:
318:
76:
525:
513:
392:
457:
415:
291:
247:
writing but OR nonetheless and therefore inappropriate for
Knowledge (XXG).
438:
333:
310:
72:
456:
emerging/potential/possible/future title is bad and should be avoided.
623:
but not delete.For example "potencial superpower" instead of emerging--
552:. This article is well-written and well-sourced, and in same style as
635:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
433:. Assuming that it is kept, any objections to renaming it to
281:. If this article is nominated for anything, it should be
258:
Surely there are books written on the subject. Cite them.
67:a place for POV essays, which this effectively is.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
607:I see no reason for the article to be deleted. --
645:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
95:WikiProject Power in international relations
558:European Union as an emerging superpower
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
250:What needs to be verifiable is that
24:
87:Keep in strongest terms possible.
554:India as an emerging superpower
435:China as a potential superpower
59:China as an emerging superpower
475:reliable source in itself. --
1:
368:Sourced, well written, NPOV.
628:16:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
612:15:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
600:05:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
588:03:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
571:23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
545:22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
529:05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
517:21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
497:05:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
480:18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
468:18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
447:18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
426:17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
403:17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
384:15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
361:08:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
342:04:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
325:00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
297:23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
266:06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
233:23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
210:23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
197:22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
137:22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
108:21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
81:21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
53:02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
662:
152:, to justify deletion. --
638:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
227:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim
102:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim
113:Strong and Speedy Keep
65:Knowledge (XXG) is not
578:- its encyclopedic.
89:This is a part of
382:
380:Now under review!
91:WikiProject China
653:
640:
597:Heimstern Läufer
566:
493:
490:
465:
464:
461:
423:
422:
419:
378:
373:
357:
354:
321:
313:
294:
289:
230:
229:
194:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
105:
104:
34:
661:
660:
656:
655:
654:
652:
651:
650:
649:
643:deletion review
636:
585:
562:
491:
488:
462:
459:
458:
420:
417:
416:
371:
355:
352:
319:
317:
311:
292:
287:
252:reliable source
225:
224:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
100:
99:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
659:
657:
648:
647:
631:
630:
614:
602:
590:
583:
573:
547:
531:
519:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
471:
470:
450:
449:
428:
405:
386:
363:
344:
327:
315:
299:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
259:
256:
248:
244:
215:
214:
213:
212:
139:
134:
131:
128:
125:
122:
119:
110:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
658:
646:
644:
639:
633:
632:
629:
626:
622:
618:
615:
613:
610:
606:
603:
601:
598:
594:
591:
589:
586:
581:
577:
574:
572:
569:
567:
565:
559:
555:
551:
548:
546:
543:
539:
535:
532:
530:
527:
523:
520:
518:
515:
512:
509:
506:
505:
498:
495:
494:
483:
482:
481:
478:
473:
472:
469:
466:
454:
453:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
427:
424:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
399:
394:
390:
387:
385:
381:
377:
376:
374:
367:
364:
362:
359:
358:
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:
326:
323:
322:
314:
307:
306:speedily kept
303:
300:
298:
295:
290:
284:
280:
277:
276:
267:
264:
260:
257:
253:
249:
245:
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
231:
228:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
211:
208:
203:
200:
199:
198:
195:
178:
151:
147:
143:
140:
138:
135:
132:
129:
126:
123:
120:
117:
114:
111:
109:
106:
103:
96:
92:
88:
85:
84:
83:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:CharlotteWebb
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
637:
634:
620:
616:
604:
592:
575:
563:
549:
542:John Smith's
537:
533:
521:
507:
486:
431:More comment
430:
407:
397:
388:
369:
365:
350:
346:
329:
309:
301:
278:
241:
237:
226:
201:
146:weasel words
141:
112:
101:
94:
90:
86:
68:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
522:Strong Keep
414:, above).
366:Strong Keep
347:Speedy Keep
302:Speedy keep
285:, not AfD.
207:ColourBurst
564:Mar de Sin
625:Pixel ;-)
609:estavisti
372:Signature
308:before.--
584:Bakatalk
150:verified
619:or/and
580:Bakaman
534:Rewrite
526:Hkelkar
477:Richard
412:Richard
330:Comment
263:Richard
238:Rewrite
222:Indeed.
202:Comment
621:Wikify
617:Rename
514:Bejnar
508:Rename
242:Delete
69:Delete
576:Keep'
492:eagle
489:Noble
437:? --
356:eagle
353:Noble
320:talk?
16:<
605:Keep
593:Keep
556:and
550:Keep
538:once
463:damr
443:talk
421:damr
408:Keep
398:talk
389:Keep
338:talk
293:ecis
279:Keep
142:Keep
93:and
77:talk
71:. --
48:. —
46:keep
560:.
439:Nlu
393:RJH
334:Nlu
312:TBC
240:or
73:Nlu
445:)
401:)
340:)
283:GA
261:--
173:mo
170:lo
167:So
158:sl
79:)
460:X
441:(
418:X
395:(
336:(
316:Φ
288:A
193:k
190:l
187:a
184:t
180:|
176:n
164:y
161:a
155:I
133:y
130:b
127:b
124:o
121:b
118:-
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.