Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet censorship in Hong Kong


 * 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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Internet censorship in Hong Kong

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I believe this article is not a notable one. There is no internet censorship to speak of, and cannot be demonstrated. The article instead attempts to synthesise a link between certain events, laws allegations actions to buid a case that doesn't exit. It's a practical violation of WP:FRINGE Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Internet regulation in Hong Kong is a reasonable topic for an article, although the article could have better sourcing. The proposer is misguided to say as a reason for deletion "There is no internet censorship to speak of, and cannot be demonstrated": the article accurately sets out the law, stating that censorship is limited, but some forms of internet media are still banned, and giving historical information, all of which is or can be substantiated.  Although the title may not seem strictly applicable, there are similar articles, e.g. Internet censorship in the United Kingdom, which describe regulation in other jurisdictions that do not have overt PRC-style censorship. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this sentence "There is no internet censorship to speak of" is very strange. Did the nominator mean to say, "political internet censorship"? Because the article indicates that the Hong Kong government censors "obscene" materials like internet pornography. Shrigley (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Hong Kong is part of China, but administrative rules, including rules related to censorship, are different between Hong Kong and the rest of China. That needs to be talked about somewhere and this article is a good place to do it. If the article has shortcomings, we should work to improve it rather than deleting it. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 14:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment I just don't see how this article can be expanded after all related law and incidents are placed in the article. The article can be easily turned into a timeline of events. The article in its current state is poorly referenced, as most references points to the Laws Information System and five references point to the human rights report from the US Dept of State. --Wylve (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per W163. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The proposer is misguided as to what is notable. If there is sufficient notability to a topic, then there exist reliable sources. If it is not notable, there are no reliable sources. Although the article can be improved, the topic is notable. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep since the subject is important. While Hong Kong and the rest of China have different rules on the Internet, this topic is inherently notable if one is looking for the differences in the laws between Hong Kong and China. In China, you couldn't access flickr, youtube or likely wikipedia due to the 'Great Firewall of China' unlike Hong Kong. Isn't that important? --Artene50 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant discussion in secondary sources, the nomination of this page for deletion ... is particularly ironic, yes? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (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.