Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong national security law


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 20:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong national security law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a stub; most of the content is already covered by another article. This article's title is also a move destination of that relatively comprehensive article, which is currently discussed on the talk page. -- NYKTNE (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Comment I want to thank everyone for their opinion. My initial thought was that most of the contents of this stub were repeating those in another article and that this article was supported by some seemingly biased Chinese sources. But now that it has been expanded and greatly improved, I would also support keeping it. -- NYKTNE (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- NYKTNE (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- NYKTNE (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The other article is specifically about the decision by the NPC. This stub is about the law more generally and there is ample scope to expand it with developments in Hong Kong and internationally as matters develop. Mccapra (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Sounds like the nominator is arguing for merger into the page in question. That's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Mccapra is correct. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Important, but needs improvement. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Now improved, with currently only 1 section out of 6 being about the decision: they evidently deserve separate articles. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the story is developing and very important in the context of current politics. The article has been written well and with adequate sources. Abishe (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - not only per WP:SNOW, but also given that an article being a stub isn't a deletion rationale at all, no valid reason for deletion has been put forward. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - The legislation of a national security law for Hong Kong have been the most controversial political topic other than electroal reforms since 2003. The article works very well as an overview article. OceanHok (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page in question focuses more broadly the law, rather than the decision by the NPC of China which authorises the drafting of a law. I do believe there's a confusion in overlap here, though. From the names alone, currently, it sounds like there's two articles covering the same law. There may be renames or merges required, and there is already a proposal for a rename of the NPC page you linked. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.