Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Black Police (2nd nomination)

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.

Hong Kong Black Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

The Hong Kong police have become either heros or hate figures depending on your political viewpoint. It is an unescapable fact that this article an attempt at concretising the vilification of the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this is entirely an issue of neutrality. Just because an epithet is used to express a single political viewpoint doesn't mean we cannot cover it neutrally. However, there is still a notability issue. As explored in the last debate, though this term is used in Chinese-language media, sources lack
  WP:RNEUTRAL, a redirect to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests would be appropriate. Perhaps even a merge would be appropriate, to a new section Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets. Does either alternative to deletion sound workable? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. This term is widely used in Hong Kong and actually originated long before the 2019 protests. There's plenty of media coverage of this term and incidents related to this term. While the term itself is not neutral, we can definitely cover it in a neutral manner; to refuse to cover a notable non-neutral topic is to practice
  censorship. Same article has been nominated for deletion and merger (to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets) on Chinese Wikipedia, but was eventually kept as is. -- 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚 （Talk） 05:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Notability has only increased since the last AfD discussion where I argued for "keep". Sources published since that AfD cover the origin of the term (e.g. SCMP) and the usage of the term (e.g. Ming Pao). This is in compliance with
  WP:NEO: cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. feminist (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Note: the SCMP article is an opinion piece and so shouldn't really count towards

  WP:RSEDITORIAL. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:RSEDITORIAL also states that The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Per SCMP's description, Lisa Lim was formerly Associate Professor and Head of the School of English at the University of Hong Kong. As an article written by a subject-matter expert, the SCMP article is reliable. feminist (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge to
  WP:NEO probably applies. New sources could change my mind. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:CFORK. -Zanhe (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which is the actual topic here. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2020 (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.