Chinese threat theory: Amigao ( talk ) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no sufficient policy-based argument has been made.  Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Politics , Economics ,  and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article could use some work, but the first few sources cited suggest this is a subject that has broad recognition and thus passes WP:GNG .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Extensive independent, significant coverage from leading media outlets, including Reuters , New York Times , Al Jazeera , The Times , The Times of India , as well as a plethora of primary academic work on the topic.  Owen× ☎ 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It appears notable, doesn't look bad enough that deletion is the best option.  Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 00:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This seems to be a WikiEd article so pinging the prof: @ Piotrus : .  Also seems to be at least partially a translated article from zh .  Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is not exclusively a WP:NOTESSAY violation to warrent an AfD 𐩘 Data pass talk ⌇ contribs 08:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Thanks Jumpytoo for the ping.  I am indeed the instructor supervising this.  And yes, this is a translation from zh.  While the article needs copyediting and whatsnot, I believe it meets WP:GNG and is ready for mainspace (I'd rate it as C-class, not B-class, but shrug).  If the nom thinks there are some essay like part, I recommend they either fix them or list them on talk so that the student can do so (the assignment will be graded in mid to late December). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the only problem I could envision is if there already was an article on the topic.  If that was the case, then the newer article should be merged into the older article.  Abductive ( reasoning ) 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per all forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean delete.  The article itself seems synthetic, relying on headline phraseology to create a topic where one does not readily exist: it admits it is not covering one specific 'theory', but rather collating every assorted way another polity has characterized China as a threat, without justifying why they are all part of one "thing".  The subject seems to have vanishingly little substance outside of detailing China's foreign politics, which is contained in other articles.  The article should either be deleted, or its scope defined much more narrowly about a specific 'theory', either self-professed or at least as the label China has begun applying in its rhetoric.  Remsense 留 18:12, 1 December 2023 (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: keep