Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration: Coddlebean ( talk ) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : WP:CSK #3.  Those three articles are obviously about different topics.  Li Keqiang Government refers only to the composition of the State Council of the People's Republic of China after the 12th (2013-2018) and 13th (2018-2023) National People's Congress .  China under Xi Jinping covers the socio-political governance and influence of China during Xi's chairmanship, which extends past 2023 as Xi remains Chairman after the 14th National People's Congress.  The subject article is about the Fifth Generations of Chinese leadership , which is a common term coined for categorizing distinct periods of communist leaderships and inherited from the Hu–Wen Administration .  In other words, the article is about political institutions of China during the combined rule of Xi and Li from the period 2013-2023, which discusses the distribution and swift of power between Xi and Li during their governance.  A simple BEFORE already shows the broad usage and actual meaning of this term , and the nominator (once again) did not provide a deletion rationale grounded in Wikipedia guidelines.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : as above.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per Prince of Erebor.  Agree that WP:CSK #3 applies.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Li Keqiang Government is the Central People's Government of China from 15 March 2013, when Premier Li Keqiang took office, until March 2023 , while Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration is the administration of China from 2013 to 2023 .   Both articles list the State Council members, and do little else; it's not obvious that the articles should not be merged.  (I agree that China under Xi Jinping is clearly very different).  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Walsh90210 : Not really, they are quite distinctive.  The key difference is that the subject article includes details about the distribution of power between Xi and Li, which Li Keqiang Government would and should not cover.  Another distinction is that the discussion/analysis of this term usually focuses on the power shift from a more equally distributed structure to one more heavily leaning towards Xi, as well as the conflicts between Xi and Li's policies and governance.  This is clearly differentiated from Li Keqiang government again, which solely covers the administrative structure of the State Council.  Rather than a merge, this article requires an expansion.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think I lean towards merging this article with Li Keqiang Government .  Either title is fine, but these are quite redundant.  I don't see why details about the distribution of power between Xi and Li cannot be included in Li Keqiang Government .  What bothers me more is the title.  Shouldn't this be at Xi–Li Administration , per the Chinese name and Hu–Wen example given above?  Toadspike [Talk] 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toadspike : I beg to differ.  The term "Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration" (習李體制) has both broad and specific usage.  (See Radio Free Asia [31] , Radio Taiwan International [32] , and academic journals from Journal of East Asian Studies [33] , Peterson Institute for International Economics 's Policy Briefs [34] , etc.)  Merging (/redirecting) it to Li Keqiang Government would not be helpful unless there is a whole subsection explaining the nuances.  However, the discussion of power shifts and struggles would cause the focus to swift more towards describing Xi Jinping's political influence, rather than Li Keqiang, and the article would digress (similar to the corresponding article in zhwiki where Xi was given significantly more content).  So I do not think merging X–L Administration into Li Keqiang Government would be a good option.  Instead, Wen Jiabao Government currently does not exist, and articles mentioning Wen Jiabao Government is pipe-linked to Hu-Wen Administration , which makes more sense, as the discussion of power distribution is broader than just the composition of the State Council.  However, whether Li Keqiang Government should be redirected to X-L Administration is another discussion at another time, and this current AFD is not going in the right direction as it proposes to delete the article that is more worthwhile to be kept.  A rename is also unnecessary, since Li Keqiang's successor, Li Qiang , is also surnamed Li, redirecting the article to Xi-Li Administration would cause confusion (I think Xi-Li Administration should be turned into a disambiguation page if Xi Jinping-Li Qiang Administration is created in the future).  Given the above, I still think WP:CSK #3 should apply, as the nominator has misinterpreted the subject article's topic (at least everyone in the discussion agrees that the subject article differs from China under Xi Jinping ), and this article clearly has enough notability to exist.  Walsh90210 and Toadspike's suggestions of a potential merge of Li Keqiang Government can be done on the article's talk page or in another AFD.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 08:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So you're saying that "Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration" is the COMMONNAME and that certain content is appropriate only under that title and not under Li Keqiang Government .  In that case, we should merge Li Keqiang Government into Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration .  I think your second paragraph agrees with this.  Just because AfD is "Articles for Deletion" doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus to merge instead.  As for renaming the page, Xi Jinping–Li Qiang Administration is a redlink.  If you are correct that Xi–Li Administration ( 习李体制 ; 習李體制 ; Xí Lǐ tǐzhì ) is the COMMONNAME of the Li Keqiang Administration, and I believe you are, then we should move Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration to Xi–Li Administration .  Once someone creates Xi Jinping–Li Qiang Administration , we can add a hatnote to that page, but I am fairly certain that right now the Li Keqiang Administration is the primary topic of "Xi–Li Administration" by a wide margin.  Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify for the closer, my current ! vote is to: Merge Li Keqiang Government into Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration , and Move Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration to Xi–Li Administration Toadspike [Talk] 13:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toadspike : Yes, you have interpreted my rationales correctly, although I am only suggesting that a merge of Li Keqiang Government article into this article makes more sense.  Personally, I still have some reservations, given that both articles are about very different topics.  There might also be opinions from other Wikipedians regarding that potential merge, so I think another discussion on Li Keqiang Government is much needed.  But since this current discussion is about the fate of X-L Administration, I do not think it is the right place to discuss how to deal with another article, especially since we both seem to agree that X-L Administration is the more notable and worthwhile one to keep (along with some speedy keep !votes agreeing that all three articles are covering different topics).  That is why I was suggesting a new and separate discussion for Li Keqiang Government, and this current discussion should be closed as a Keep, since Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration will not be not going anywhere.  Regarding the renaming, the sources I listed in this discussion all use the term "Xi Jinping-Li Keqiang Administration", and I think this should be the COMMONNAME (due to more frequent use in reliable sources).  But I also found some using the shortened Xi-Li Administration (like The Straits Times [35] and South China Morning Post [36] ), and I do not oppose a rename per WP:CONCISE .  The full term could be mentioned in the lead.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 14:45, 3 July 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: keep