Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 China censorship of Google services

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 Internet_censorship_in_China. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 China censorship of Google services[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is a badly written content fork of Internet censorship in China. It's about an incident in 2014 but is written in the present tense. However, the language is opaque and most of the references are in Chinese so it's impossible to understand what the current state of affairs is. Normally I'd merge it but without adequate references that can't (and shouldn't) be done. This is a well-meaning but hopeless article that fails WP:CFORK, WP:POV, WP:VERIFY. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (i) The present tense is used only because it is not a incident in the past, but a incinent from past to present. It is still blocked now. (ii) Wikipedia:CFORK issue. I don't think it is a content fork. By definition, A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. However, it is a complete article. Even if you really think it is a content fork, it should be included in the exclusion rule - related articles. (iii) WP:NPOV issue, the non-neutral words such as "obviously" have already removed. If there are still some, then please remove the words. (iv) WP:VERIFY issue. Most of the words have citation, exception some with the {{citation needed}} templates. Moreover, citations to non-English sources are allowed, although English-language sources are preferred. I don't think that "I don't understand non-English sources" can be a reason to deny the reliability of sources. --Yejianfei (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason why it cannot be included in the main article, which already has a section on specific events such as blocking of Google in 2013. The article uses both the past tense and the present continuous tense randomly, but only gives dates and references from mid 2014 - nothing more recent - so there's no reliable sources to prove that this is ongoing. I'm sure it is, of course, but then it certainly isn't a 2014 issue per the article title and much of the content, and that's an even stronger case for merging with the main article. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the tense: There is nothing wrong with the tense. Google started to be blocked at the end of May 2014 (past tense), but is still blocked at present (present tense). -- Yejianfei (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not how it reads. For example the second sentence says "users... found that" (past tense) "are not able" (present tense), both mixed up in the same sentence. You also talk about this as being ongoing but provide no recent references. Admittedly it's now a lot clearer than it was, but anyway that doesn't matter - this article is a content fork, which is all that needs to be said, really. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed all the sentences with present tense to "started to", and now I don't think I need any references to prove whether it is ongoing. Again, I don't think it is a content fork. Do you think Windows 7 is a content fork from Microsoft Windows? -- Yejianfei (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it simply is a content fork. Regardless of whether or not other articles are, this one is. Consider this point: the title refers to 2014. That means the article can only be about an event that happened in the past, in 2014, and is now finished (like the 2012 Olympics, for example). But in that case it is a content fork of the main article because there are already other similar incidents there that took place in the past, such as this one in 2013, and that is the appropriate place for it to be. But if it is about a wider ongoing issue (which it is) then it addresses a more general point about China's ongoing censorship of Google, which is a subject that is covered extensively in Internet censorship in China. So if it's in the past, about a specific event, it's a content fork and if it's in the present, about an ongoing issue, it's a content fork. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(i) In fact, this one in 2013 you gave for example should be splited according to the Wikepedian rules Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Article size.
(ii) The question "Do you think Windows 7 is a content fork from Microsoft Windows?" is not actually asking you to judge whether that article should be deleted or merged, but asking you to clarify your judging standard of content fork, because I have found your judging standard is really strange. -- Yejianfei (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content in 2014 is pretty sparse, I think the best thing for the content as a whole is to place any wikiworthy content in Google China. And if Google china gets super big we can look at ways to split it then. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Somewhat relevant: With regard to national censorship of popular sites, for Facebook we're using Censorship of Facebook and we put a handful of countries in there, each with different incidents. I notice most of the stuff in this article: Censorship_by_Google appears to be government or legal forced censorship on Google, and there's already a China section, so seems to be a good target for merging or merge to Google China as suggested above.. ― Padenton|✉ 21:48, 1 April 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - But it needs a bit of a rewrite. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No real meaningful content for a stand-alone article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like belling the cat, I'm not sure exactly who should do the merge or how. I'd have already done it myself if I could make sense of the article and the references were of good quality and up to date. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2015 (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.