| Revision as of 15:46, 6 August 2007 editChesdovi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,098 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:04, 7 August 2007 edit undoHemlock Martinis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,318 edits →[]: Closing.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}} | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Nomination withdrawn'''. ] 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{la|Chinese settlements in Tibet}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Chinese settlements in Tibet}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 18: | ||
| *'''Keep''' but needs cleaning up to bring it up to standard. It is a bit difficult to garner information from NPOV sources - there have not, I don't think, been any resolutions against this settlement policy made by the UN or other similar international bodies. This fact however does not make it non-notable. ] 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' but needs cleaning up to bring it up to standard. It is a bit difficult to garner information from NPOV sources - there have not, I don't think, been any resolutions against this settlement policy made by the UN or other similar international bodies. This fact however does not make it non-notable. ] 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Withdraw nomination. Admins, please close. --] 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | Withdraw nomination. Admins, please close. --] 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Revision as of 22:04, 7 August 2007
Chinese settlements in Tibet
- 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 Nomination withdrawn. Hemlock Martinis 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Chinese settlements in Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not notable. Wang C-H 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The article makes a claim of notability - that the settlements have contributed to the modernization of Tibet. There are sources backing this up. Even if there is controversy on this point, it warrants an article.--Danaman5 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, although the title may be too limiting (do all Chinese move into just these settlements? I don't think so). The Chinese government has been "settling" ethnic Chinese into Tibet for the entire time they've controlled it. Is there no other article on this? --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Notable topic, though it needs better sourcing than a bunch of Free Tibet websites and a single heavily partisan journal article. cab 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep clearly notable. It would be better titled Chinese Settlement of Tibet or Chinese Immigration to Tibet however. Bigdaddy1981 04:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for notability. RandomCritic 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but needs cleaning up to bring it up to standard. It is a bit difficult to garner information from NPOV sources - there have not, I don't think, been any resolutions against this settlement policy made by the UN or other similar international bodies. This fact however does not make it non-notable. Chesdovi 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination. Admins, please close. --Wang C-H 15:42, 6 August 2007 (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.