Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link


 * 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   close. This can be brought up at Proposed mergers. Not here. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Merge - Disputed page merge to Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong Section . The two are closely intertwined, and the protests must be viewed in context of the project. What is more, the target page is only 21k after merger, which makes for a more complete article. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No merge - Historic events should always be separate articles whenever possible. Any event with its own name, and of this scale should be its own article. Is the same reason we don't merge Marco Polo Bridge Incident with Marco Polo Bridge. Benjwong (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * bad example, I'm afraid. Temporally, the bridge was built in the 12th century, and the incident occurred at the former in the 20th century. One wouldn't even contemplate merging 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings into Gulou and Zhonglou (Beijing) for that same reason. The rail link protests are intimately linked to the construction of the project itself, and to my mind is well within the scope of the latter. Integration makes perfect sense. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge seems obvious to me. If possible both sides of a controversy should be in the same article. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please suggest why it is obvious. We are at the point where we have Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers a separate article as Lehman Brothers. So why does this event not deserve its own article?  Ohconfucius should also point out why a merge now, a full year after the event. Benjwong (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed now a year since the incident. There is no time limit on undertaking certain actions, and quite right too. On looking back, the protests are already a part of the history of the development of the rail project. I had intended to merge these for some time, but I often like to leave things for a while, so as not to stifle article development. Luckily, probably because of the low traffic/interest, the articles have not become POV forks of each other. I really don't see a rationale for keeping them apart any longer. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  cab (call) 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. A development project and opposition to it belong in the same encyclopedia article. They are more tightly coupled than the examples given above of incidents at the location unrelated to its construction. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no WP rule that suggest that. Deconstruction (Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers) is not a reason to merge it with Lehman Brothers.  So why is a Construction incident a reason to automatically merge it with a train stop article? This has notability and is not an unnecessary split. Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per Ohconfucius.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No merge. The protests aren't just related to the railway line, but to the development of Hong Kong's democracy, and as such will likely stand on their own even years from now; and there are enough sources to warrant an article on significance. The railway line, once built, will have technical features to report and will gain an operational history, thus I'm sure that that article will expand significantly in the (near) future. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as this discussion is in the wrong place. Merging is an editorial decision that doesn't require an administrator to hit the "delete" button, so should be discussed on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (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.