Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical pro-Beijing camp


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The keep votes have presented no reliable sources indicaticating notability and there is consensus that this is a subtopic that ought to be covered in the main article rather than forked. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Radical pro-Beijing camp
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China,  and Hong Kong.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per 's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK        or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge and then delete and create-protect per WP:FORK and WP:SALT. I'm confused again why this was even created. It reads like a parody created by Terry Gilliam. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (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.