Talk:Anti-ECFA protest

Proposed deletion
I wouldn't go as far to delete it, but perhaps the article can be merged/incorporated back into the original subsection for the subject it refers to. -Multivariable (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a "criticism" section in the ECFA article already, protests are mentioned as well. Thus the nomination for deletion, a single protest without any incident is non-relevant when in a free democracy as the Republic of China - at least non-relevant to an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.242.18 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't based on what you think is relevant or irrelevant (WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV). It's based on information founded on reliable sources, and it certainly isn't what one person deems is relevant/irrelevant. I would have used a merge template with this instead. -Multivariable (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The question is... do we have to get really nasty with these articles for them to stay? Prior to this event there were some heavy comments from both DPP and KMT side outside the debates. Is it better to keep it the way it is or fire it up to make them really ridiculously notable. Benjwong (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti ECFA protests are already mentioned in the actual ECFA article. I propose deletion. Freetaiwanblog (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're proposing seems to be a merger rather than a deletion, hence some of the confusion. A deletion of an article is when it lacks notability or reliable sources and is subsequently deleted with no further action. A merger on the other hand is when the article content doesn't warrant (or need) a separate article, in which case the information is incorporated (back) into another article. -Multivariable (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that a merger with the main ECFA article is called for, not deletion. Taiwantaffy (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

...Right. Why I proposed "deletion" instead of "merger" is because all the information in the current article is already included in the ECFA main article. Freetaiwanblog (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merger
I propose a merger of this article with the actual ECFA article, namely the section "criticism". Freetaiwanblog (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I don't think this article is going to have much other content added, so a merger into the appropriate section in the ECFA article makes sense. -Multivariable (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I propose deleting the short protest intro in the ECFA article and substituting it with the text from this article. Multivariable, what is the proper procedure? Freetaiwanblog (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Move the content like you described into the ECFA article (using "merge content from Anti-ECFA protest " as the edit summary). Replace the content of this page with " #REDIRECT Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement ". Then add "  " into the talk page of both articles. See more info on a full-content page merger here: WP:FMERGE. -Multivariable (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merger, too
I agree with the proposed merger. Also, the vancouver article is a dead link. It should link to http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Thousands+protest+Taiwan+against+China+trade+deal/3206252/story.html I am not wiki savvy enought yet to repair this. can someone help?