Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China confidential

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was No consensus, but urge AndrePachter to take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before voting in future AfDs for articles in which he is personally involved. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China confidential

Non-notable blog. Also appears to be a vanity page. Alabamaboy 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) *Delete. per above.--Alabamaboy 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Not true! The article cites important references to show that the blog is more than a vanity blog or diary and in fact a respected source of news and analysis about China's rise--arguably, the most important news story of our time. China Confidential is a sign of the growing influence and reach of blogs that help to shape opinion and influence mainstream media coverage. Aside from possible racism--discrimination against Chinese--there is no apparent reason for delting this entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 20:30 (UTRC), 16 June 2006.

http://www.topix.net/world/north-korea?full=70f87e8238 NEARLY 700 ARTICLES OBVIOUSLY PRODUCED BY A TEAM OF JOURNALISTS ON A DAILY BASIS SINCE APRIL 10, 2005 ... THIS, IN ALABAMABOY'S RACIST MIND IS A VANITY BLOG. SIMPLY INCREDIBLE ... AND STUPID. Try this link out for size: http://www.afriquecentrale.info/fr/news/news.asp?rubID=1&srubID=6&themeID=1&newsID=4378 AfriqueCentrale is a leading---maybe the leading--news portal/news site for Central Africa. This link is one of 2 articles referenced and linked to by the editors. Another AC link to CC: http://www.afriquecentrale.info/fr/news/news.asp?rubID=1&srubID=5&themeID=1&newsID=3888 And here is a reference and link from MwindaPress, another Africa new site: http://www.mwinda.org/article/chinoiseries.html Not notable? Give me a break! Maybe Alabamaboy and his buddies missied this: http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/05/china_determined_to_take_back_taiwan_confidential_repor_1.php Or this: http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/05/china_completes_construction_of_maos_yangtze_river_drea.php How about this? http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2006/06/05/china-questions-for-hu/ Or this link: http://asiabizlaw.blogspot.com/2006/04/china-confidential-turns-1.html And the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/05/11/china-poised-to-crackdown-on-foreign-law-firms/ Check this university reference--scroll down to #29.http://sun.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/igcs/igpol.htm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .

  • I should note that calling the article a vanity page did not mean the blog was a vanity blog. A vanity page at Wikipedia is an article used to promote a subject. See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for more.--Alabamaboy 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Andre Pachter appears to be the "Confidential Reporter" who who writes this blog. see this search Bwithh 02:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Andre Pachter is a pen name under which several people write.
  • Keep. Astonishingly, this article didn't have a link to its own blog (which I have now added)! However, having googled there does seem to be quite widespread reporting of it. My view is that it should be kept for now and reviewed in about 12 months to see if its profile continues to develop. BlueValour 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the blog has a poor google hit result. See my delete vote below Bwithh 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Urge to keep. The absence of a link is the opposite of an advertisement; and the article puts the blog in the context of a global publishing phenomenon. The Google ranking is actually astonishing. Same for Yahoo and MSN.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 20:57 (UTC), 16 June 2006.
  • Vanity page? Non-notable blog? There are nearly 700 articles in the archives. Take time to search via the internal search engine, using key words such as Taiwan; military buildup; rural unrest; human rights; Nigeria; Congo; Peru; oil; diplomacy; urban underclass, etc. Another example of why the non-notable criticism is deeply offensive and plain wrong: China Confidential recently broke a story about a crackdown on foreign law firms operating in China. Within a few hours, The Wall Street Journal Law blog referenced, quoted and linked to the article, copying the China Confidential headline almost word for word. Four days later, the Associated Press and Interfax picked up the story.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 21:13 (UTC), 16 June 2006.
  • Delete. Unfortunately this blogspot.com thing fails all Wikipedia notability criteria. --Ezeu 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Fewer than 400 google hits minus the blog's own pages and a couple of namesakes. A "China Confidential" search run gets a mixed morass of hits from being a relatively common phrase. Running a search That is not "astonishing". I did a Factiva international newspaper, newswire and magazine database search, and there were zero relevant hits for "chinaconfidential", "china confidential" and "chinaconfidential.blogspot.com". The article claims the blog has been referenced in the Wall St. Journal, AP, and interfax. There is no evidence from Factiva of this. I could not find the claimed reference by the BBC on the BBC website either. Bwithh 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The BBC World Service program "Have Your Say," http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/ does not keep a permalink to guest website or blogs, unlike all the other links shown here.
      Update: I found a WSJ reference... however, its only in one of their ownblogs. Bwithh 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/05/11/china-poised-to-crackdown-on-foreign-law-firms/
      Try this link, dummy: http://www.opendemocracy.net/openblogs/blog/od/2005/04/12/mt_135.textile
      OK. For some reason alabamaracistboy who hates chinese has targeted this news site, which has published as a daily blog since April 2005. If any of you idiots had bothered to search properly you would go to technorati and find over 200 links to China Confidential articles. You would also note that the Wall Street Journal blog is akin to a newspaper column--or is that not notable enough for a Wikipedian? You would also read carefully and find that AP and Interfax ran the law firm crackdown story four days after China Confidential broke it, but failed to credit China Confidential by name, which is typical for wire services. The point is, China Confidential is an internationally respected source of news and analysis and indicative of the blogging phenomenon. Or is the wiki phenom all that counts in your insular, sick world? Go to China Digital Times and search China Confidential. Go to Global Voices Online and search China Confidential. Go to China Law Blog and search China Confidential. Go to Technorati--specifically, to the US-China Relations tag--and you will find that China Confidential has dominated the discussion with up-to-the-minute news and analysis.
      Why have you targeted this article for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Racism is a serious accusation, Andre. Please explain yourself. (by the way, not all Alabamans are white stereotypes... and not everyone in this discussion is from a non-Chinese background...) Bwithh 02:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Racism is unfortunately as American as apple pie--and tragically international. Though our site is assisted and accessed by people who every day struggle against China's authoritarian system, we are painfully aware of the double standard that seems to exist for Chinese companies, websites, individuals who dare to assert themselves. Are we hypersensitive? You bet. Perhaps your Wikipedia has an article about discrimination against Chinese immigrants in US history. What are we to think when we are targeted in this manner? China Confidential is legitimate, nonprofit, non-vanity daily blog offering up-to-the-minute news and analysis regarding China's rise--perhaps the most important story of our time. The entry that alabamaboy is apparently determined to delete is non-promotional. We did not even link to the blog because we were afraid it was too aggressive (for Chinese who don't know their place). The article is factual. And it places the blog in the context of a global phenomenon that is transforming the Internet--again--as well as journalism and politics. The very fact that China Confidential--which is published, edited and written under pen names to protect certain sources and preserve freedom of travel--can achieve the audience and recognition it has speaks volumes about the credibility and appeal of its content. The editor was in fact interviewed on the BBC, which linked to China Confidential, on the day of the White House summit. And China Confidential's "bloggertorial" about the diplomatic disaster was referenced, reprinted, hyperlinked around the world. But ... we are just a Chinese vanity operation in your view.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .
One might also say that racial homogeneity and its cultural ramifications are as Chinese as tea, but that would also have nothing to do with the discussion here. Andre, the main concerns about this article are the verifiable notability of the subject and the hyperbolic, inflated style in which it is written. Bwithh 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So instead of deleting it--like Stalinist censors--why not suggest changes? We do not want to promote or advertise, only to have our news and analysis site included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .
    • Incivility will not help the article but get you blocked. --Ezeu 10:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • WE APOLOGIZE FOR BEING OVERLY SENSITIVE. BUT WE ARE WORKING UNDER EXTREMELY DIFFICULT CONDITIONS AND SIMPLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME NEUTRAL ARTICLE ABOUT OUR BLOG IN THE CONTEXT (A) OF CHINA-FOCUSED BLOGS AND (B) THE GLOBAL BLOGGING PHENOMENON THAT IS TRANSFORMING THE INTERNET AND THE NEWS BUSINESS. THE ARBITRARY, CAVALIER DELETION AND BRANDING THE BLOG AS NON-NOTABLE OR VANITY, WHICH IS WHAT ALABAMABOY DID WRITE, CONTRARY TO HIS EFFORTS TO OBFUSCATE, IS WHAT UPSET US. HAVING SAID THAT, WE DO APOLOGIZE AND KINDLY REQUEST INCLUSION. NEW LINK: http://www.topix.net/world/north-korea?full=70f87e8238 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 17 June 2006.
  • Delete While there are a limited number of valid references behind the subject, it doesn't have enough notability to justify its own article. The manner in which it has written is also strongly inclined to that of a vanity page.--Auger Martel 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the blog appears to meet the notability criteria we would normally use to assess blogs. The article does need a serious cleanup, to be sure, and the behavior of whoever is here advocating it is nothing short of abusive, of course. Still, being annoying in defense of your blog is not a reason we should use to delete the page. :) I post this opinion as an ordinary editor, this is not a decree or anything. I strongly recommend that the China Confidential defender adopt a more co-operative and kind tone. --80.128.38.104 08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first and only edit. --Ezeu 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep--The subject of the article seems to meet the notability requirements. The article itself is very unencyclopedic and needs serious wikifying. Those are the sort of problems that could easily be addressed by a cooperative effort, but the extremely aggressive style taken in this discussion makes me wonder whether that will happen. It's a shame that there's no mechanism for articles like this to be placed on some sort of suspended sentence, where they'll be deleted on a certain date unless certain steps are taken to bring them up to snuff. Kickaha Ota 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It seems notable and important. Also given the limitations the Chinese government places on "politically sensitive" information, I'm even more inclined to vote for keep. However, the comments of this site's principal supporter almost made me vote for delete. NOTE: if your way of arguing in support of your site involves so much insulting, anger, name-calling and incivility that it turns off even potential supporters, you need to change your tactics. Interlingua talk 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We agree and again apologize to all concerned. Please understand: sometimes, when one is involved in a struggle--and it is a struggle to maintain our unpaid network and adhere to our commitment to daily reporting and analysis--there is an unfortunate tendency to treat even legitimate criticism as condemnation. The content of our blog, however, does not reflect our response to perceived insults here (the business about vanity and non-notable blog). Though published under pen names, the content, while deliberately opinionated and at times somewhat sensationalist, is compelling and credible. We have build an audience on this basis alone. Naturally, we like to think this reflects positively on our work. But it also highlights the power of the Internet and the ways in which two converging technologies--blogging and broadband--are truly transforming the medium and the news and information businesses. Perhaps this is why the powers-that-be in China--who have blocked our blog--along with countless others--so fear the phenomenon. So ... thank you for your patience. Please try to include an entry about China Confidential. We are small but still significant--and frankly notable. All we care about is accuracy and fairness.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 17 June 2006.
Note from Alabamaboy: I'm not going to respond to the comments about me being racist and such (which, to anyone who knows me, would be laughable). What the article's editors should know is that I originally speedy deleted this article as nonnotable and a possible vanity article because of the zero backward links to the site using the Google search tool. When the article was recreated, I brought it to the larger deletion forum so people could comment on the proposed deletion and see if the consensus agreed to delete the article. I should still note that it is against Wikipedia policy to have the creators of a site create an article about their site on Wikipedia (that is the nature of a vanity article here). Wikipedia does not exist to promote anything, no matter if the item being promoted is a blog which (as in this case) appears to be doing very good work.--Alabamaboy 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the note. We sincerely apologize to you. We made no effort to hide the fact that we ourselves contributed the article and did not know this was frowned upon. But ... we could easily have contributed the piece under a different name. Instead, we made no effort to hide our involvement because we saw nothing wrong with it. Nor do we have any attachment to what we wrote. We frankly find it difficult to write in the encyclopedia style--it's not our thing. We simply want to be included, feel that China Confidential is important enough to rate mention. Rather than reach out now to a friend to rewrite the piece, which we could easily do, we preferred to leave it for consideration and editing by others. However, we are open to suggestions and advice.-Andre Pachter
  • Keep. In light of the supporting evidence of the site's notablity, I am changing my vote to keep. I am still concerned about the article being a vanity article but perhaps other editors can fix that.--Alabamaboy 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Thank you.
  • Delete. It's a blog. 'Nuff said. --M@rēino 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuff said? Are you serious? Huffington Post started as a blog, now aggregates blogs--and has 1-2 million readers.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLR%2CGGLR%3A2006-19%2CGGLR%3Aen&q=china+pollution+problem+june+2006 More than 5,400,000 search results for china+pollution+problem+june+2006 ... and the China Confidential article is #2 right below the NYTimes. There are many more examples. With over 700 articles covering a broad range of specific topics, China Confidential articles and essays increasingly show up high in Google rankings. This is no ordinary blog, with all due respect. Frankly, the intensity of the reactions of some--their apparent determination to delete even a modified, edited, Wikified--whatever--piece on China Confidential is downright puzzling. We have already apologized for our emotional response, and hope we can be included.... Andre Pachter PS Please have a look at this one: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=china&btnG=Search+Blogs and this: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=china+confidential&btnG=Search+Blogs http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&domains=bearshare.com&client=pub-3233632352412683&channel=8362897247&safe=&cof=GALT%3A008000%3BDIV%3Af4f4f4%3BVLC%3A551A8B%3BALC%3AFF0000%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A7777CC%3BGIMP%3AA90A08%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbearshare.com%3BFORID%3A10%3B&searchtype=Query&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=taepondong+-2c+missle&ad=w9&num=10 This one, 9 or 10 out of nearly 17 million, 2 below a Wikipedia article, as of this moment: http://www.google.com/search?hs=wsi&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=historical+link+between+China+and+India&btnG=Search Not to belabor the point, but as of this moment #6 out of 27 million: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=china%27s+threat+to+environment&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=the+coming+collapse+of+china+2006&btnG=Search This article was widely referenced. -AP FYI: http://www.rfa.org/english/features/blogs/blogwatch/

  • Comment. Is anyone else really worried about what direction this page could EVER go? Andre seems very defensive, to the point of calling people racist. I worry about how encyclopedic and fair the WP article on China Confidential will be. And I'd like to see citations on all the statistics and claims made in the article. Is there someway we would put this AfD on hold for a month and see whether the rhetoric can be toned down? Janet13 05:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_China_confidential_be0d.html"