Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests

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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests[edit]

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

According to WP:PERSISTENCE "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. " It dosen't seems have been cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down. --王小朋友 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pls refer to the Chinese sources on zh:中國茉莉花革命: 120 items.--Nivekin (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. " Can you list some sources which were reported months after this protest finished? --王小朋友 (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIVERSE: "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." Coverage in Chinese include national and international medias: BBC, AOL, VOA, DW etc.--Nivekin (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find passing coverage and cannot find a single case study after the initial coverage burst around March 2011. The original notability seems to be established based on similarity to notable events and diversity of sources, but the event does not seem to have a lasting coverage in Chinese and English media. Maybe one day academics will write it in how media speculations flop badly to establish the notability again, but right now, it fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfiler (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 September 2012‎

I have a question. If an article doesn't meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, while the article meets all other guidelines, should the article be deleted?--王小朋友 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The protests have significance to the time period and to China in general and are therefore notable. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Receiving continued coverage, including in scholarly books [1]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There isn't any problem in finding passing coverage like the one-liner mentioned in the book. The problem is finding active, in-depth courage about the event in Feb-March 2011 (not speculations about the middle east one happened earlier and how it will impact China, that is not an event and Wikipedia's event policy does not cover speculations) after the initial burst. Has the event been described to have long time effect?--Skyfiler (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, this is not a one-liner, this is at least three pages (presumably more but the preview cuts off). Not too bad considering how little time scholarly books have actually had to come out since the event. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The one liner is for protests actually happened during 2011. The 3 pages followed are trying to rationalize the speculations rather than covering the protests. If you read the book again you would see the way it mention the protests is as one of the evidence that the government tightened up security in anticipation of Arab Spring's impact. This can hardly qualify as in-depth coverage.--Skyfiler (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important part of the history of contemporary China. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese and others. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 12 September 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.