Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independence of Hong Kong

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 no consensus. No clear consensus on what should happen to this article was arrived at PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Hong Kong[edit]

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

This article is written as if it is an umbrella topic, but it does not have the WP:RS necessary to show notability as an umbrella topic, particularly the RS for the facts in the article don't exist. There are only three references about this topic out of 18 references in the article, the rest are all generic history. Of those three references, one doesn't work in English, and the Chinese version would not qualify as WP:RS. The other references cover Hong Konger Front, which already has an article. So essentially this article is just a content fork/duplicate which makes Hong Konger Front look more relevant than it is - a severe violation of WP:UNDUE. 15-20 years ago there was academic/political discussion about the relevancy/viability of an independent Hong Kong, that is well covered in the handover article and this writing does not even attempt to touch on that. That coverage was not about any movement. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say many Wikipedia articles do not even have any references. So that is not reasonable to delete the article for your reasons. I would recommend merging Hong Konger Front into this article, while Independence of Hong Kong is a more valuable article (than Hong Konger Front) Andyso^{(talk page)} 16:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this article was created only 2 days ago. The deletion is really unreasonable and unfair for a 2-day old article. Regarding to the references, I'll try to improve and fix them ASAP. Andyso^{(talk page)} 17:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't unfair. New articles on controversial topics should have high standards and should be sourced from the beginning. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The references are good enough for now considering there has only been 1 editor.

Whether this is a movement or not
Whether HKF is the only group to represent this idea
Whether this is a 15-20 years ago movement or a discussion that hasn't even started

Really these are all the more reasons to keep this article so we can research further. Benjwong (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is "Independence of Hong Kong" the specific name of a political party? Or is it simply a political movement? If the latter I would suggest a re-name to Hong Kong Independence Movement where it can act as a much better umbrella term and as a place for individual independence parties/organizations to be mentioned. It can also discuss the independence movement history re:early 1980s when the UK was debating what to do with Hong Kong (keep, cede to China, support independence, etc.) Ravendrop 08:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a political movement, it has started maybe more than 20 years ago. (The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, and June Fourth Incident of 1989).
HKF is not the only group but probably the most significant group representing the idea
The name I used is referring to the article "Taiwan independence", which has no "movement" after it. Andyso^{(talk page)} 08:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Okay makes sense. However, when I hear "Independence of Hong Kong" I think of the actual moment of independence (which, for Hong Kong has yet to happen) rather than a movement pushing for Hong Kong. Generally, such as Sri Lankan independence movement, Quebec independence movement, or ... separatist movement, are much more commonly used. Regardless, the topic is notable, but needs work. Ravendrop 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Topic is most definitely notable. It needs work and a refimprove, but those are not reasons for deletion. See below Ravendrop 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points. Therefore I hope this be keep too. Andyso^{(talk page)} 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show, by using reliable sources that this topic is notable or are you just asserting that? Aside from one group, there is no evidence here of any "political movement". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hmmm. Now that I look more closely at the multitude of sources I found on google searching both "Hong Kong Independence" and "Hong Kong Independence Movement" the vast majority of them appear to be either published by the Hong Konger Front or a group closely affiliated with it. (My lack of Cantonese isn't helping matters much). Your initial assertion of WP:UNDUE seems to be correct. However, I still think there is a place for an umbrella article describing nationalist attitudes in Hong Kong since 19th century British contact, but this article is clearly not it. For it to become anything like that it would have to be totally re-written, and thus deletion is the proper course of action. As per the umbrella article argument, yes, parts of it are covered by Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong and 2000s in Hong Kong, but sources such as these: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] suggest an umbrella article, such as Hong Kong Nationalism could be created. Finally, the merger proposal put forth by User:Andyso is best held elsewhere, and the original nom's issue of UNDUE would push by vote to not to merge. Hopefully, that makes sense. Ravendrop 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Since the independence of Hong Kong is nonexistent and unlikely to exist, it's best to name it something like Hong Kong independence movement or the like. The current title is highly misleading. Ray^Talk 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But based on what sources does a "Hong Kong independence movement" even exist? It does not, except for one group, and that group already has an article. I'd support a rename as an umbrella article for multiple groups, if they were documentable but that isn't the case no matter what we name the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I wouldn't oppose a redirect or merge to an existing group, if you prefer. But I don't think we should tolerate having an article this misleading in its current form. Ray^Talk 02:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think article like this one is similar to Ryūkyū independence movement... There are sources in the article already, probably just need some clean up. T@vatar (discuss–?) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been renamed Andyso^{(talk page)} 10:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This independence concept definitely existed in the 1990s. Hence it should not be deleted. This session should close. If there are any more to discuss it should go in the talk page. Benjwong (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This independence concept definitely existed in the 1990s." ^{[citation needed]}. Until we have WP:RS citations showing an independence movement existed, ever, we do not have the basis for an article. It has yet to be shown that a broad movement beyond one group exists, or existed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The only reason you want to delete this is...you know that, and I know that...Andyso^{(talk page)} 09:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To SchmuckyTheCat: This is really unusual for a such deletion. I've read many articles on Wikipedia and I can say most of the topics are not even notable. So if you really want to delete this article, please clean them first. The only reason you would request for the deletion is purely political, is this right? (That is my own opinion, and so you don't have to agree with me) (Also, if you don't agree with the topic, you can just ignore it.) Andyso^{(talk page)} 17:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My political views are irrelevant to the discussion. And irrelevant in general, my connection to HK is simply work and tourism, not political. I have stronger views on Wikipedia's accuracy and neutrality than Chinese politics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Most people will not edit this article until the deletion tags are removed. See my comments in the talk page about the reason for a lack of sources. Do you want to discuss why the CPC doesn't allow sources regarding independence to be printed in the SAR territory? Benjwong (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sources means no article or else it becomes original research. If this was a notable topic (and an independence movement in a territory of a superpower nation would be) there would be plenty of academic and diplomatic sources from outside the country to base an article on. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you find sources for something like Five constituencies referendum where the crowd is chanting "liberate Hong Kong" publicly.... but the words "HK independence" are never used and does not appear in any source. It is still relevant. I don't know if you understand what I am trying to say. HK independence is quite different than the usual straight-up Taiwan, Tibet events. Benjwong (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like: http://www.hkdailynews.com.hk/news.php?id=83721 but my understanding is that Albert Chan, who led that chanting, is leading towards universal suffrage, not nearly as radical as independence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think you are looking for reasons to keep this article by asking for very standout type of independence activities like riots and attacks. But HK has historically been more interested in the dialogue, paperwork etc. That's why I think you should stop pursuing the way you are, and just let people slowly edit the article. Benjwong (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2011 (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.