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 merge to Canada–People's Republic of China relations. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Burton (sinologist)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant promotion of the author and his consultancy business. Subject does not seem to meet notability criteria (no important academic position, no important public position, no published books), and his only claim to notability was a report by him commissioned by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. Note, this article was created via WP:AFC. BabelStone (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's author Maryge63 is presumably Mary Ge, who works for Charles Burton and Associates. BabelStone (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burton has a significant record of publication including books and academic articles http://charlesburton.webplus.net/pubs.html. I will remove the reference to the consulting company. I do work for him part time from here in China, but he did not solicit this entry. I put him in because I was surprised he did not have an entry in Wikipedia already Maryge63 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a reference to his work advising on policy at the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee Party School. As his materials in the external links show he has also done a lot of policy advising work at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and is adjunct at a number of Chinese universities. His work, op-eds and interviews are frequently translated into Chinese in Chinese blogs (he lists just some of the translations --- they tend to get deleted by the Chinese internet police) and in the Chinese "Reference News" and internal Chinese publications. He is a well-known figure here in China and gets so much press coverage in Canada as well as being on a lot of news panels, etc. He really is a significant international figure with a lot of influence and respect in China and among Chinese policy people in Western government, but he is modest and keeps a low profile due to the sensitive political nature of his work. He has accompanied the Prime Minister of Canada to China and is there when Chinese leaders visit Canada, met with the Dalai Lama in Canada at request of Tibet authorities every time he comes http://www.flickr.com/photos/cburton001/6992533818, etc., etc. I think BabelStone might want to reconsider. Maryge63 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Sinologist" should be capitalized if this is kept. No opinion as to notability or lack thereof. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appeared based on the references available that notability was clearly met while this was in AFC. I'm the one who reviewed and moved to articlespace. Although I'm concerned about COI, not sufficiently so to detract from the notability of the article. Perhaps there's a better title, as "Sinologist" is not a common disambig term dangerous panda 10:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Canada–People's Republic of China relations. I cleaned up the article a little. He does have an academic connection, but it's not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC, and neither is his very weak citation record at Google Scholar. His claim to fame would be through WP:GNG, in that he apparently did have an impact on Canada-China relations through a study he released in 2005; this is confirmed by various references at the article. That seems to me like a pretty weak basis for a stand-alone article, but still deserving of better than an outright delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Canada–People's Republic of China relations as per MelanieN's argument. Quis separabit? 19:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - fails the PROF test, but his work ought to be mentioned in the bilateral relations article. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2012 (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.