Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War: I'm skeptical that this WP:SPINOFF article is necessary at all.  It was started because there was some confusion over why Chinese Communist Revolution doesn't have the same name as the English translation of the Chinese Wikipedia's article's title.  GoldWitness , the English and Chinese Wikipedias don't have to line up perfectly.  Links between Chinese and English articles are meant to link the two articles with the most similar subject matter, not exact twins.  This is a natural result of the fact that English and Chinese historians describe this period of history differently, and group the events differently.  If it's decided this article is necessary, GoldWitness please see these instructions on how to do it properly: WP:CORRECTSPLIT SilverStar54 ( talk ) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Politics ,  and China .  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, thank you for letting me know the instructions on splitting an article!  In my mind, the Chinese Communist Revolution differs so greatly from the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War that a spinoff is necessary.  As the article describes, the Chinese Communist Revolution "is about political and social developments, and the origin and aftermath of the war" while the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War is the second stage of the Chinese Civil War.  In other words, one is about political and social development, and the other is about the second stage of military conflict.  They are not lining up slightly differently.  Instead, they are two almost completely different subjects.  GoldWitness ( talk ) 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're absolutely right that "Chinese Communist Revolution" and "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" are not the same things.  That's why I'm suggesting that this page become a redirect to Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949) , not Chinese Communist Revolution .  I also agree with you that the Chinese article on the "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" probably should not be linked to the English article on the Chinese Communist Revolution (or the other languages' articles on that topic).  Personally, I would support  you creating a new Wikidata item for the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War and assigning the Chinese article to that item, rather than to the one for the Chinese Communist Revolution (although other editors might disagree).  Here's a helpful guide on how to edit Wikidata: [40] , and some introductory stuff about interlanguage links .  Basically, I think you're rushing to create a new article when this problem could be better solved in other ways.  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for showing me the guide on Wikidata.  I've never heard of Wikidata before!  I will look at it some time.  GoldWitness ( talk ) 23:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding rushing to create a new article, I saw some editors suggest that this article's content and sources were not enough for a spinoff.  So, I wanted to show that this article has substantial content and sources by expanding it rather than spending time thinking about and writing an opposing opinion.  Once this article is developed, I think the arguments supporting those comments suggesting a merge or deletion in this AfD debate will no longer be valid.  Anyway, thank you very much for sharing your opinion!  GoldWitness ( talk ) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have created a new article in Wikidata called "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" and linked several languages to it.  Thanks!  GoldWitness ( talk ) 22:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello SilverStar54!  I have launched a discussion about those languages, which are titled "Chinese Communist Revolution" while actually referring to the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War in Wikidata.  I think this may be controversial, and thus, a consensus is probably needed to change the links further.  I hope you can participate in this discussion.  Thanks!  GoldWitness ( talk ) 23:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This request is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution .  If you go back to see the what the article Chinese Communist Revolution was like in 2013 when the deletion request was made, you can find that all of its content was about the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War.  So, there is no need to discuss again on whether a WP:SPINOFF article is necessary.  GoldWitness ( talk ) 02:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : the article seems like it's still in the process of being written, so incubating it in draftspace until it gets expanded sufficiently would probably be better than deletion.  Drowssap SMM 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  If there were much, much better sources to prove coverage for the subject there would be a stronger case for keeping the article.  But as it stands it would be better merged given a huge deficit in content.  GuardianH ( talk ) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Do you think it is a better choice to give editors some time to edit this article?  If, after some time, this article still has a huge deficit in content, we can post another AfD at that time.  The fact that this AfD was launched fewer than 2 hours before the article was created gives no chance to add content and sources.  GoldWitness ( talk ) 22:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Related to sources, I have added some books in the "Further reading" section of this article.  These may be useful for citation.  GoldWitness ( talk ) 22:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – if Chinese Civil War was 5000 words longer, I would support this being a separate article, but as mentioned above, it seems presently best to have one article with the adequate level of detail.  Remsense 诉 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution , a consensus has been reached before.  Haha33 2 ( talk ) 07:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  That's a different article.  Remsense 诉 09:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article Chinese Communist Revolution in 2013 and this article refer to the same event.  So, they are actually the same.  Haha33 2 ( talk ) 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They do not.  Wars and revolutions are different historical events, even if they blur together.  The French Revolution is not the same thing as the French Revolutionary Wars .  American Revolutionary War and American Revolution are also separate articles.  Russian Civil War , Russian Revolution , and so on.  Remsense 诉 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think they are different, I will reuse the opinions in this discussion.  "The article [Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War] is linked to from Chinese Civil War and the former is supposed to be a sub-article of the latter covering the second part of the civil war. The article Chinese Civil War contains only summary information of this subject which should be expanded upon. Poor quality content is not a reason for deletion of an article. Rather the article should be improved to meat the required standards." ---- Rincewind42 "I find it generally unfathomable that this topic would not deserve its own article. Just becase a topic can be thought of as a part of another topic doesn't mean it can't have its own article. There is plenty of overlap of this kind on wikipedia and it is a very good thing. There's plenty of bad content on wikipedia's china related articles, be bold by deleting clearly bogus content, not the articles. (not to suggest there aren't also plenty of bogus articles). WP:AQU, I've made this kind of mistake myself." ---- Metal lunchbox Haha33 2 ( talk ) 20:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do think it's reasonable for this to be its own article as a sub-period of Chinese Civil War , and to be summarized there.  My concerns were merely that splitting the article was not the correct balance at this particular moment.  Remsense 诉 02:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think that this and Chinese Communist Revolution are substantially the same subject, wouldn't you want to merge this article with that one?  Why would you support keeping this article?  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 23:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because this and 2013's version of Chinese Communist Revolution are substantially the same, and the deletion discussion of Chinese Communist Revolution took place in that year.  I think the consensus reached in 2013 was that the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War was a part of the Chinese Civil War, and it deserved its own article, and I reused it in this deletion discussion.  This article and the current version of Chinese Communist Revolution differ.  In other words, Chinese Communist Revolution used to wrongfully refer to the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War, but it is corrected now.  Haha33 2 ( talk ) 00:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay that makes more sense.  I still think that Chinese Civil War isn't long enough to require a split, but I understand your position.  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without keeping a redirect.  Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949) .  In English, this war is generally known as the Chinese Civil War, or at least part of the Chinese Civil War.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we all agree that this is a part of the Chinese Civil War.  What we are discussing in this AfD is whether this topic deserves an article.  I think being a part of the Chinese Civil War is not enough to prove that a split is not necessary.  GoldWitness ( talk ) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge