Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights abuses by Hong Kong police

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August &#9742; 03:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Human rights abuses by Hong Kong police
Delete Merge with Hong Kong Police after removing POV material'':Is not NPOV-Simply a vendetta against the Hong Kong Police and a promotion of the user's Political agenda. --Gpyoung talk 03:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

NOT Delete: The information it contains is so well-documented, and many of the case had even gone through legal process. If you disagree with those external information source, and simply think these NGOs (or I) have a political agenda, show your evidence.--RageAgainstWhiteWash 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to say that there are two (or more) sides to this and every story, and this article only addresses one of them. Yes, I will agree that there is evidence of abuse by the HK police, but I am sure that it is contested. I dont think you will disagree that it is a blatantly one sided article which is clearly opposed to the HK police. If you have evidence concerning this topic, try and present it in a neutral fashion. I suggest that you create a section on the Hong Kong police article entitled "Alleged human rights abuses by the Hong Kong police" and quote Amnesty International and the other organizations that criticize the HK police there. Please see WP:NPOV for more information on writing in the neutral point of view.
 * Comment I tried to see this article, but RageAgainstWhiteWash, had vandalized the page. Do you guys think an Rfc is needed? Alot of work has gone into this, and it should be saved in a Merge into Hong Kong Police Force, but the POV is unacceptable, and I think Rage's behavior is as well. However, he's a newbie, so i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he eschews future confrontational behavior. Karmafist 15:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually agree. I have tried to talk to this user about merging the article, but they do not seem to see how a POV artcle is unacceptable, I do think they even see this as POV (keeps saying sbuse is "well documented"). I think since the user put in so much work, we should try to add a section to Hong Kong Police entitled "Alleged Human Rights Abuses" with the content (re-written of course) from this article. I have changed my vote to merge. --Gpyoung talk 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. Voters may or may not wish to know that the author of this article repeatedly removed such large sections from Hong Kong Police Force that the article had to be protected. This article is, effectively, a fork of that behaviour. -Splash 03:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is currently POV and has some spelling/grammar issues, but I think it would be worthwile to keep it if it can be NPOV'd and cleaned up. GregAsche 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with GregAsche, except I think that it should be merged into Hong Kong Police Force.   ‡   Jarlaxle   03:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary POV fork of Hong Kong Police Force. -- BD2412 talk 03:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep at Human rights in Hong Kong or whatever is the formal English name of the Hong Kong police. Gazpacho 04:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork, Wikipedia is not human rights watch.--nixie 04:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mostly POV.  BTW, the abuses by HK police is no different from other police force.  If anyone wants to write, write an article on the misuse of power by police forces. However, this may turn out to be an original paper. -wshun 05:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge appropriate sections to Hong Kong Police Force as per  ‡   Jarlaxle  . Hamster Sandwich 08:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge as per Jarlaxle. Sandstein 11:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 *  Delete Point of view fork. Editors who observe the neutrality policy shouldn't be asked to battle to correct this sort of thing. Osomec 11:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Too large a subject to be merged with Hong kong police. Sarcelles 13:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Does need some cleaning up and de-POVing, but besides that its a perfectly legit article as long as everything in their is true, and if there are things you have evidence of being false, delete them from the article, don't delete the whole article.  If it is not large enough after being de-POV'd, then Merge, but right now it is too large to merge.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 21:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. That it's true does not make it worthy for inclusion in wikipedia. By presenting only one side of the story as per commentors above, this article is definitely POV. (Even though the information may be truthful.) -Hmib 04:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So we must present the story of the officers involved in the violations; we have articles for human rights violations in Iraq, Sudan, Guinea, and a bunch of other places. This is on a much smaller scale, but that should just mean it is easier to present both sides.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 05:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete POV, not even close to neutral POV. Cursive 23:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article itself is legitimate, and merging into other articles will make the resultant overlength. POV work can be done later on. De ryc  k C.  12:48, 20 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.