Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protests against suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition

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 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition[edit]

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

Not notable enough for it's own article by a long way: perhaps merge into Languages of China where it can be placed in context JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the protest at the moment is small scale and low key, but it has a very strong cultural drift and clashes under the surface, and these undercurrent will come to the surface in the near future, because the next wave of protest will be in Hong Kong on 1/8/2010. within the next six months we shall be able to see lots of protests of similar theme, by then this article will be able to expand. Arilang ^talk 12:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article may be merged to 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television. Mewaqua (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having now seen that I agree: 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television is a far better merge target, and looks like like a full and proper treatment of the topic which clearly has more to it than a single protest. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into that article, which is much bigger.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAccording to what I read in Chinese blogosphere, the next protest will be in Hong Kong, possibly on a larger scale, unlike the Guangzhou flash mob style. This article 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television is fine, it is quite comprehensive, but the title is kind of restrictive, because the real reasons of these protests is the clash between the Beijing authority and the Lingnan culture. Arilang ^talk 13:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: “2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television” itself is not restrictive. Its “Background” section can be expanded to include ~~in-depth~~ a suitable amount of analysis of China’s policies concerning local cultures. A simple attempt has already been made (see first paragraph under “Use of Cantonese in television” section). In-depth analysis of the issue warrants a separate article.

I envision that “2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television” will serve as the main article on all related events, with a few satellite articles expanding on details of various specific subjects. A separate full article on the protests is a good candidate to be one of those satellite articles. Kxx (talk | contribs) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:INCUBATOR. I support the idea of having a separate full article on the protests, which allows more space for details (especially after the protest in Hong Kong). But this article, as in its current shape, is far from ready to go live in the Article namespace. In particular, language use should be improved and factual inaccuracies have to be fixed (e.g., the photo of GZMTR TV, it is not hacked but an advertisement). WP:INCUBATOR is probably the best place for these tasks. Kxx (talk | contribs) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television. Mainly because of bad title and similarity of both events.--LLTimes (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television. As this is the more comprehensive article with references. Takamaxa (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" . There will another rally for cantoneese in Hong Kong, Macao, and Guangzhou. There will be enough stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsms (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Contents are about the same. Was anyone else aware of one article, let alone two? Since most of the votes are to keep or to merge, I am going to merge it. Benjwong (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBenjwong, this is a AFD, the discussion is still on, and no consensus has been reached yet, don't you think it is up to an admin to make any decision?

Hi. Afd is to ask for deletion. There is 1 delete vote above by LL who also requested a merge. I just did the obvious. If you want to propose renaming 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television to Protests against suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition. Please do at the talk page. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is also a process, which until it's completed no editor should take actions to pre-judge the outcome. So even though I agree I've undone your changing the page to a redirect. Please give the process time to run its course, and other editors chance to comment, first.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As a side-note: An umbrella article about the general political relationship between Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Chinese would be very interesting and helpful in understanding the recent tensions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television into this article. This article is a better target for this content because its name is less restrictive, as noted above.--Pink Bull 16:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if it will ever be possible to locate any reliable references for “suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition” given the repeated denial from government officials. What’s more, isn’t protest even more restrictive than controversy?Kxx (talk | contribs) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the inability to find sourcing. As far as I know, the international media has been able to report on any perceived wrongdoing by the Chinese government. As for the name of the article, "protest" is indeed more restrictive then "controversy", but "Chinese speaking tradition" is far less restrictive then "increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television." Perhaps we can merge both articles into a newly named article such as Suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition.--Pink Bull 18:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would become what is called above an “umbrella article” and is supposed to cover a lot more than the events since Jun 2010. Kxx (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in 2010 can be a start. I really don't have any definitive solutions. It's just that of the two names suggested throughout this discussion I think it would make more sense to use the less restrictive name then the more restrictive name. --Pink Bull 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably keep, but can it be copy-edited, please? Tony (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC) On further reading, I'd consider a merge, too. Hyphen missing from title, so can that be fixed if it's merged? Tony (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into '2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television' as a more neutral title, and generally more comprehensive article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:24, 4 August 2010 (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.