Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locust (mainland Chinese tourist)


 * 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Locust (mainland Chinese tourist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete and startt from scratch. While an article about the tensions and protests is welcome, this is an extremely one-sided POV article, starting from the biased title and finishing with some clear POV comments about "sycophantic pro-Chinese local politicians" (!) and "a political adviser who has evidently not travelled by bus or train for years" (!!). A neutral article based on sources (completely lacking here) like may be worthwhile, but it should be started from sratch, with a neutral title and neutral contents, not a POV title with very POV contents, so it isn't useful or preferable to keep this article at all. Fram (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources at all. Clear NPOV issue. Written purely to disparage a group of people with no balance at all. Cowlibob (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IAR Speedy Delete, as quickly as possible. It's a completely unsourced and one-sided attack on mainland Chinese tourists and a political attack on Hong Kong authorities. It's rather disturbing that it was created by an editor with such a long and respectable record here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete No-independent reliable source found on the subject. Purely one sided POV article, no balance as it says ( majority of Hong Kong citizens dislike and resent the presence of so many mainland tourists in Hong Kong, their views have so far been ignored by the government) and also at many places. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No-independent reliable source found? What about CNN, International Business Times, China Daily etc. etc? But I agree that the article is unbalanced and its tone is unencyclopedic. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Those sources might support an article about the protests, but they would not support this attack on the "locusts" themselves and on the HK authorities -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just pointed out that there are reliable sources confirming use of this pejorative term in Hong Kong towards mainland Chinese tourists. The article as it stands now should be deleted, but I've expressed my opinion here so I won't do that. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, it seems we agree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Highly POV and given the title never likely to be anything else. There is already an article on Tourism in Hong Kong and any NPOV info can be merged into that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, unsourced and coverage of the same issue exists in other articles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a pretty clear attack article.  There's no sourced information, so there's nothing to merge.  The concepts in this article – if they can be presented neutrally – can be discussed in Tourism in Hong Kong.  There really isn't much reason for this article to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Soapboxing. STSC (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see that politically correct censorship is alive and well on Wikipedia. I am perfectly happy to footnote this article, as I have footnoted all my other articles on Wikipedia. The only reason that there are not footnotes yet is that I only created the article yesterday.

I am also perfectly happy to give the 'pluses' about mainland tourism, e.g. that the 'locusts' contribute to Hong Kong's economy, provided you give me time to add to this article instead of responding with a knee-jerk reaction. Indeed, I would be even happier if some of you critics helped me out in this respect and made a productive contribution. The mainland invasion is the biggest crisis in Hong Kong's history since the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, and I find it bizarre that it does not deserve an article of its own. How many of you know Hong Kong, by the way?

The article should also contain a reference to the Hong Kong Government's attempt to stifle local criticism of mainlanders by invoking a seldom-used law against racist remarks. The lawyers responded that this would be inappropriate, because the criticisms were made by one group of Chinese against another group of Chinese.

Djwilms (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "politically correct censorship" and NPOV. I would expect someone with the autopatrolled and reviewer rights to recognize this.  Chalk it up to a bias that you didn't realize you had, ignore that topic in the future, and avoid digging any deeper. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problem with your article is that it reads like it was written by an angry Hong Kong resident. See LAWS, No. 14. We all should bear in mind this recommendation when adding new content. This is an encyclopedia, not a free forum to promote someone's frustration. Please, write in a neutral tone and don't forget to cite your sources. I believe that the topic is very important for better understanding of the current social situation in this part of the world. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article was indeed written by an angry Hong Kong resident, and I and many other Hong Kong residents are angry with good reason. However, now that I have let off steam, I am happy to help to move this article towards a more neutral stance.  Having worked for many years as a senior administrator in the pre-1997 colonial Hong Kong government, I am used to arguing both sides of a question, and as I said earlier, am perfectly willing to do so.  But it's ridiculous for the thought police to threaten to delete an article within hours of its first appearance, before its author even has time to draw breath for his next round of edits.
 * This is an issue of great local importance in Hong Kong, which affects the way of life of nearly all the territory's citizens, and it deserves a long and thoughtful article. I would have moved it in that direction anyway, had I been given the time to do so.  Perhaps it should be called 'Hong Kong: Mainland Tourism Controversy' or something like that.  At the same time, the entry for 'locust: mainland Chinese tourist' should remain under locust: disambiguation, as the term is in universal use in Hong Kong and deserves a reference.  One of my Hong Kong Chinese friends was telling me yesterday that the term 'locust' goes back much further than two years, so there might be quite an interesting article to be written tracing the term's history.  Indeed, my original aim was simply to provide a brief article to that effect, hence its title.  Then I decided to expand it.  Those of you who know my work on Wikipedia will realize that I am perfectly capable of writing a NPOV article, so long as I am given adequate time to do so.  So can we please call off the lynch mob and discuss this issue rationally?  It is very disconcerting to be mugged by a crowd of holier-than-thou puritans.  We get quite enough of having our opinions censored by the local Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, without the Americans pitching in as well.
 * Djwilms (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're really not helping yourself here at all. And while I haven't checked the nationality of anyone else that commented here (and don't care what nationality they have either), I can assure you that I'm not an American (and not a puritan either). It would be best if you avoided this article and subject as the plague (pardon the pun), but if you insist on writing it, do it in your userspace, don't put extremely one-sided unsourced POV versions with very poor titles in the mainspace. Then ask some uninvolved, neutral, more detached editors to check the article and move it to the mainspace when they believe it to be acceptable. But it makes no sense to keep any of the history so far, it will only taint the article for the future. Fram (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote an appalling and horribly-POV article, and now you're slagging off everyone who dares criticize it as censors, puritans and Americans! (Nationality is irrelevant, but for the record I'm a well-traveled Brit who has spent a lot of time in Asia, including HK). Just how on earth did you think we'd respond to your venting of your personal anger in an article in such an unacceptable way, eh? Fram's right, you're really not helping yourself with the way you're responding. I suggest you step back a bit, cool off a bit, and then review the way you have behaved here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * By all means. Perhaps we should all calm down a bit. And perhaps you might then like to consider the two practical suggestions I made in my last post for dealing with this article, instead of simply dismissing it as 'appalling'.


 * A good start might be for you all to read a couple of paragraphs I have extracted from Monday's International Business Times:


 * An “anti-locust” campaign by disgruntled Hong Kong residents upset with the influx of mainland Chinese tourists and visitors threatens the city’s tourism, much to the dismay of local officials.


 * Groups of protesters marched through the Tsim Sha Tsui district of Kowloon on Sunday, demanding that the Hong Kong government take measures to curb the numbers of mainland visitors in the autonomous territory. These visitors, who are dubbed “locusts” by their detractors, are accused of hogging the already congested city’s resources and overwhelming locals. A scuffle broke out at the beginning when counterdemonstrators also showed up, until police intervened.


 * My point is that this issue is a major concern in Hong Kong at present, and should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I have suggested how this might be done.  Remove one or two adjectives like 'sycophantic' from my original text, give it a new title, and quote pro-tourism sources as well, and I don't see why a lot of the original text can't stand.


 * Djwilms (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, it seems like a valid subject for an article. I'm just honestly not sure you're the best person to write it - not in your current mood and with your very strong viewpoint apparent (and your suggestion that you simply need to "remove one or two adjectives" etc only reinforces my opinion). If you really want to write it and are confident you can produce a good NPOV version, I'd follow Fram's suggestion that you write a new version in your user space and ask someone neutral to review it before moving it to main space - you could take whatever you think can be rescued from the current version as starting material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you agree that the subject deserves an article. But you are probably right that I am not the best person to write it, and my enthusiasm for writing it has also waned anyway.  Things move fast in Hong Kong, and the next big thing will be the deployment of the PLA to deal with rioting when the Occupy Central protest begins its planned disruptions, probably in July.  If Chinese soldiers in riot gear appear on the streets of Hong Kong's business district, the problem of mainland tourism will disappear overnight.  For the moment, however, resentment continues to grow.
 * I agree, now that I have calmed down, that my original article was provocative, but I think that it was an overreaction on the part of the administration to deal with it in the way it has been dealt with. I respond to rational argument when I feel that I am being treated fairly, and most of my anger came from the chilling and (in my view) wholly inappropriate speed with which this article was arraigned, tried, found guilty and condemned. No attempt was made to ask me first whether I was willing to try to fix its shortcomings.  If an administrator had said that this was a legitimate subject for an article but that it had POV problems, I would have done my best to fix the problems.  Instead, the Wikipedia judicial process sprang into action immediately.  This is the first time that I have been hauled before the Inquisition, and it has been a most unpleasant encounter.  I have a fairly thick skin, so it won't bother me for long.  I will simply chalk it down to experience and go back to writing factual articles on medieval Nestorian bishops, which attract few readers and fewer critics; but I do wonder whether these heavy-handed procedures put off editors from non-Western cultures who shy away from direct confrontation as a way of solving problems.  I have in mind a couple of Hong Kong Chinese friends, who had volunteered to collect some dates, facts and figures on mainland immigration for me to contribute to the article. I cannot now imagine them wanting to put their heads into the lion's mouth.  I therefore hope that everyone who has commented on this article will consider whether there are better ways of dealing with this kind of problem.
 * Djwilms (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I appreciate all that - and we should bear in mind that you are a long-standing contributor with a great record. But on the other hand, articles we create are immediately presented to a worldwide audience of millions billions - and with so many enemies out there just looking for evidence of fallibility, it is vital that we do not bring the project into disrepute. And I can only honestly say that your initial version of this article is truly horrible - it absolutely is not fit for a respectable encyclopedia, not even for a minute. Were I an admin, which I was before I retired, I confess I would have done an IAR speedy delete on it. But you do make a good point that the chance to try again should be offered, and I now think an appropriate admin action would have been to move the article to your user space until there was something ready for article space. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that this debate was triggered by some sort of official Wikipedia process. As you should know, this is not the case. Wikipedia has no "administration". It has administrators, but they do not delete articles out of hand. The nominator in this case happens to be an admin, but anybody could have nominated the article for deletion. You will note that every contributor to this debate (and anyone can contribute) has recommended the article be deleted; this is not any sort of inquisition or trial, but a legitimate discussion of the article by other editors. I can understand you feel aggrieved, since it's never pleasant having to defend an article you've created at Afd, but please don't suggest that this is any sort of overreaction. The article as it stands is completely unsourced and does appear to be little more than a POV attack on mainland Chinese visitors to Hong Kong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:SOAPBOX. Reliably sourced NPOV content can be included in a section in the Tourism in Hong Kong article. Philg88 ♦talk 09:23, 22 June 2014 (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.