English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution in China

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
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 no consensus, after careful review. There are several suggestions that the article might be renamed or merged and these issues can be taken up at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine Revolution in China

AfDs for this article:

    The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

    It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

Jasmine Revolution in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The thrust behind my AfD is that this is a wildly "recentist" and as of now a non-notable event. Much of it is built from speculation by foreign media, and nothing materialized in the country at all. No one even shouted a single slogan. The number of people who actually confronted police might be counted on a single hand. More journalists appeared at the protest location in Beijing than protestors. Even if one argues that Hu has held a conference for "social stability" and dissidents are getting arrested "more than usual" - there is nothing verifiable - only pure speculation - that these incidents are related to the ongoing protests in the Middle East. Even if we accept that all the recent government posturing is the reaction to the Middle East protests, it does not constitute a significant event in and of itself and is already being covered sufficiently in the main article. If it does develop into a significant event and large-scale protests do materialize, then we can start an article. But at this stage, this topic is much too immature to be an article in its own right - day-to-day coverage should be left to Wikinews. Colipon+(Talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Fred changed from delete to keep,[1] and has taken an interest in the article.[2] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename There are 40 sources here, how can there be "nothing verifiable"? I suggest renaming it from a "revolution" to an "incident". A mass incident may cover 1 city. This event covered 13 cities, so how can it not count. Is unfortunate enough that this happened at all. What you guys are doing is promoting violence by saying something like this doesn't count until there are mass casualties. Listen to yourself here. Benjwong (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Further comment This is the saddest deletion proposal. From now on if less than 1000 Chinese people die in an event, we'll ask user Colipon whether the event actually counts. No wonder there is never any peaceful protests. Benjwong (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You might be interested, if you can read Chinese: [3] From independent U.S.-based site Duowei. Certainly more journalists showed up than protestors. It even suggests that the whole thing was merely a "practical joke" by some young internet users looking to "have fun". Colipon+(Talk) 03:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't going to say anything. Maybe I'll fill you in from what I believe is the original case. This so called "revolution" already appeared on the 19th on HK media long ago. The original revolution was to call for a protest EVERY SUNDAY. I believe the western media already did you a favor by making it seem like it was a one time event. This dwnews also played it down a second time, by saying it is to "play". And this may also not be anonymous, as a name was already floating around the web earlier. Benjwong (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If it builds, with some actual protests on Sundays, fine, but it is not up to us to "spread the word". User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you created this article on the saturday before it happened, you are spreading the word. Otherwise you are just editing a publicly known article. Benjwong (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Fred Bauer is absolutely right. Even if we accept that this was a weekly protest to be held on Sundays, it still does not warrant enough notability at this point in time, and won't until something significant happens. Police and journalists congregating around a group of people at a McDonald's does not constitute this 'significance'. Colipon+(Talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Far more arrests happened in this event than the Li Gang incident. How come nobody is flagging that for deletion. Colipon are you going to zh:wiki afterward and mark 中国茉莉花革命 for deletion? They got alot more editors going there. Benjwong (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Who has died from this?.... NOBODY. There is a time when an article is needed yes, this is not one of those times, it does not mean it is not on wikipedia though just because it does not have its own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep people are dying that is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.213.167 (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • First off, the fact that people are dying has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Second off, who has died from this single protest? I see nothing in the article about people dying. SilverserenC 04:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename from 2011 Chinese protests to something more specific. "2011 Chinese protests" would indicate falsely that these protests were the most important protests in China in 2011, which they are probably not. But there are a sufficient number of media reports right now, many indicating that the number of journalists was greater than the number of protesters, only to be surpassed by the number of police (the number of plain clothes officers remains unknown).  Cs32en Talk to me  23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no revolution there yet. Coverage can be contained in the 2010-2011 MENA protest article if necessary. Ocaasi (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong keep with a name change. Event of sufficient note to be included, revolution notwithstanding. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep but with name of title changed. The importance of a certain incident does not link to its casualties or deaths, but with its interference to future events. It would be far too early to decide whether this article needs deletion or not-- just like the June 4 Massacre. --Yeung29hk (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep. Yug (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename, perhaps to "Call for Jasmine Revolution in China". While it was not notable as a protest, and certainly not (as yet anyway) a revolution, it was notable as a social experiment. In the current context of so-called "Facebook revolutions" in Tunisia and Egypt, one might wonder whether merely calling for a revolution using social media might create one. Evidently not, as the cases of Syria and China have shown, and that is important. The response of the authorities (e.g. pre-emptive arrests) is telling in terms of their sensitivity to such calls, and their uncertainty about whether they might be effective. In any case, the image of someone arrested for laying white jasmine flowers in the street will remain in my memory, whether or not Wikipedia decides to delete it. Hugh16 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Rename to the 2011 Chinese protests -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Rename - it's very clear that something significant and notable is happening in China, and that there is significant coverage of it. I agree that the name is perhaps not the most appropiate however.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is apprehension and jitters. A rename and rewrite which discussed the political climate China in the context of the wave of popular revolutions might serve, but might also remain a short section on Colour revolutions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename and Improve - Please refer to the chinese version's artiel of the event(中國茉莉花革命), it doesn't have a level of influence same to those protest of Middle East, but it's raising a confront of people in China to the China government. The event should be in Wikipedia as a great progress of the govertment revolution. Notice that China government now is still prohibiting people from joining the event, and the planner of the event is going have one more protest on the next Sunday, to save their innocent friends who shouldn't be put into jail.Ivantalk (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Refer to WP:VALINFO. The Chinese government doing x, y and z isn't really an argument to keep. See also WP:NOBLECAUSE. Your line of
      >The event should be in Wikipedia as a great progress of the govertment revolution
      gives me the impression that you wish to use Wikipedia as a stepping stone for "revolution", something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT for. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As the article has now been renamed '2011 Chinese protests' from earlier 'jasmine revolution in China' so there should be no issue with this article. Those supporting the Chinese govt. would like to complete remove the article altogether to avoid any future political unrest and protests in the country.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has already been renamed to 2011 Chinese protests. There are 60k-80k protests per year in the PRC according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Whether or not the protests so far documented in the article are linked to the Arab world and Wisconsin-Ohio protests or not, the recentism/non-notable/not-news arguments are irrelevant: 60 to 80 thousand protests per year in the world's most populous country are a notable social phenomenon. Remember that this is not the USA.wikipedia.org, it's the English-language wikipedia about world knowledge. The article itself clearly still needs work: 60-80k protests per year means that about 5000 or so "mass incidents" have already occurred during Jan-Feb 2011 in the PRC and have not yet been RS'd. This is a massive social protest movement. Bilingual en-zh people over at the zhongguohua wikipedia article zh:中國茉莉花革命 could help us to improve the quality of this article. There are also other places to ask for translation help. Boud (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There are 10s of thousands of mass incidents (protests) in China every year, but they are largely about isolated, local incidents. They are not part of any "social protest movement", as you claim. Putting that in this article and linking it to the Middle East unrest is just original research and speculation.--Danaman5 (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Absolutely nothing has happened. If I were to spam twitter with "OMG ROSE REVOLUTION" in Canada, grab a couple of buds to go to parliament hill, should that be an article? The only difference is that the media, which is dying for stuff to happne in China/Iran/North Korea/whatever is making a big deal out of this. Considering China's 1.3 billion population, there are clearly going to be trouble. Are we really going to document every single case of people complaining on twitter? This would be different if 100k people took to the street of Beijing, police cracked down and killed 20. Until that happens, strong delete. 140.180.14.79 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please read my comment just before yours, and look at the article. Chen Jiping, deputy secretary general of the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Communist Party of China, stated, "Mass incidents continue at a high rate. Our country is in a period of magnified conflicts within the populace, high crime rates and complex struggle against foes, and these features are most unlikely to change any time soon." (ref in article) The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences says there are about 60 to 80 thousand "mass incidents" in PRC per year. This article now is named 2011 Chinese protests. Isn't the RS case for 2011 Chinese protests strong enough? The details of inspiration/triggering by the Tunisian/Egyptian revolutions (or lack thereof) don't need to go into the title. Boud (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment I think that it should be renamed Chinese Protests and merge with other Chinese protests. This protest really isn't large enough to stand on its own (even if it actually happened, which I doubt), and 2011 Chinese protests make it sound like there are major protests in China in 2011, which there isn't.
  • Keep. Notable enough for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.158.123 (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several comments above argue for non-notability on the grounds that "nobody died". i cannot really believe that this is being proposed seriously as a requirement for a protest article to be notable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid journal. Boud (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Those comments were in response to people who used false information of death to argue for its notability. --haha169 (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice against a merge/move; a move may be in order, but the content is sourced. No reason to delete it. Johnleemk | Talk 02:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
sources dont denote notability.

delete nothign happened. pov-pushing to suggest every non-democracy is failliny..bear ind mind, there was ONE protest only, per the page.(Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

  • Strong delete or edit and merge
Firstly,I am in China right now. In fact, I am in Wuhan, one of the cities which 'had a protest', there wasn't one. I know that I am not exactly a reliable source and I could be making this up. But it is just to let you know where I am coming from.
From the Chinese wiki page, apparently, nothing had happened. For more details on this see |the talk page. Out of the thirteen cities planned, only two responded. There was no violence, not many people went and there was nothing notable. However, I understand that people might think that it should be mentioned due to the media coverage, which, bringing some POV, I don't believe in. So edit it and merge it with something else. For example, create a page called Protest in China and put all the minor protests like this one in there and links to major ones like Tibet 08. It just isn't big enough to have its own page. Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete No revolution is happening in China currently its all media hype and it has nothing significant or notable also article is very POV. — ASDFGH =] talk? 09:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. The incident discussed in the article was so small that it can't even be considered a protest on its own. The large number of isolated protests in China, usually concerning local issues, is a notable occurrence, but that should be covered in a general article about Chinese society and social stability. Comments of the type that Chen Jiping recently made are not particularly unique, and the rate of mass incidents in China has been high for many years. This article is just improper synthesis of speculative sources, and should be deleted.--Danaman5 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The co-ordinated protest in around 20 Chinese cities is clearly significant enough to merit its own article. Its separate significance from the large number of protests that occur in China on an ongoing basis is due to its commonality with the protests in the Middle East and North Africa, with some common objectives. Elroch (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • But this was, at best, a failed coordinated protest, since few or no people showed up in those 20 cities. Does someone even calling for a protest now merit an article?--Danaman5 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • These minor, failed protests cannot inherit notability from the events that have occurred in the Middle East. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - those arguing that nothing notable is happening should look at the front page of the Financial Times today, right at the top: [4]. If this article is deleted then it is an example of censorship in action, nothing less. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

    • The articles that I see mention a call for protests that was not answered, and the Chinese government getting nervous, arresting dissidents, and blocking internet keywords. I just feel like those types of things happen all the time in China. I mean, come on, the Chinese word for "carrot" is blocked because it is similar to President Hu's name. It can be covered by a section in one of the other articles if need be. Also, please assume good faith; no one is trying to censor anyone else. I certainly would not be inclined to do so. We will just have to agree to disagree on the notability of events as they currently stand.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Strong Keep - Seeing the tight control over internet and press in China, the local media is not able to print and fully cover such events, so its possible that persons it in a different cities in China might not be able to get the whole information and would undermine the importance of the article. Thought the amount of protests might not be that big but the response of Chinese government by blocking the 'jasmine' word and moderating billions of mobile phones and internet searches and content makes the article itself more important, as its not commonly seen elsewhere. So the contents or name of article can be improved, but the incidence, events and topic is worth and very important to be listed in this separate article --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article dealing with censorship in the PRC [5], if you think that this is more about the censorship than the actual protest, then maybe it should be moved there. And also, it IS 'commonly' seen, as China always blocks something or another.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • delete currently appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS as a minor passing event with no lasting signifigance. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Not notable? people got arrested. words get blocked. There are articles on Wiki about much smaller scale events and they're not flagged for deletion for not being "notable." Does Colipon flag every article on wiki for deletion if he find them non-notable? If not perhaps his movement for deletion have alternative motives. Ssh83 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
People getting arrested doesn't mean it deserves an article. Quite a lot of people are getting arrested everyday throughout the world, do they all deserve their own article. That would turn Wikipedia into WikiLaw.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete This so called revolution was a totally joke. Python eggs (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Something happened, and it is much discussed. Therefore, it is notable. The current title (2011 Chinese protests) is an improvement. The intro should make it clear that on-the-ground protests have been quite small.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Something happening and being discussed doesn't mean it should be an article. There has been some media coverage, yes, but as you pointed out, it was a small incident. So maybe it should be merged into another article such as censorship in China.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand your logic. Wikipedia has lots of articles about things that aren't important. It was a small incident that has received a disproportionate amount of attention. Why not have an article about it?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, not WP:N. 15 arrests is nothing in China; about 35 people were once arrested at the same apartment block complex that I once lived in whilst in Beijing a few years ago because they were illegally creating, distributing and selling pornography. In other words, "Move along, nothing to see here. Small nuisance on the street, news at 11". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge as a subsection of Censorship in the People's Republic of China and 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. I am sympathetic to those involved, but the moral argument is not a valid one for AfD. When we only consider the policies (specifically, WP:NOTNEWS), this article does not meet criteria. If the protests do get larger, we can always recreate it.--hkr (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Protests made Time magazine - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053522,00.html looks like it's a keeper

no, this is not time.com, its wikipedia. that can be cited but tus not the authority to "keep"Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • @(whoever the original unsigned commenter was): First of all, why are so many people ruining the page syntax like that; try not to sandbox on this page. Also, sign your posts. Now on to my main point: Does being mentioned in a Time Magazine article mean anything significant at all? Do you really think that being in an article is a silver bullet that warrants for an instantaneous "keep" in Wikipedia? Things don't work like that. I've been mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald before - does that mean that I can have my own biographical article on Wikipedia? Don't come to quick conclusions like that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just did a Google News search for 'china demonstrations' and got 2,016 results: [6]. This is one of the most bizarre deletion discussions that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Google hits have never been used as a determinant of notability. It can be used as a tool or a rough guide, however it can not guarantee that a certain topic is indeed notable. I've additionally noticed that from the google search you have provided, many pages are dated 2006, 1989, 1998, etc, and hence are irrelevant. Your search terms are very vague in the first place. Also,
>This is one of the most bizarre deletion discussions that I have ever seen on Wikipedia
You obviously haven't been here for very long. Be prepared to see many similar discussions in the future during your time here on Wikipedia. Since you're new here, you might not have seen other discussions like this one. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the WP:GOOGLETEST page, where it helpfully states 'Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy.'Rangoon11 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you're reading only what you want to be reading. The page does mention that general number-crunching, like what you have done, has little meaning. I can search for "jews did 911" and get 517,000 results; this doesn't mean that Jews did 911, right? You've missed my original point here. Many of the results from your search were irrelevant from the topic at hand, and hence your "number-crunching" had very little meaning, and little weight in supporting your argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
With respect you are conflating two separate things - a simple Google search, and a Google News search. They are very different things. It is also clear from looking at the results to the search which I posted above that huge numbers of results are from very well established news outlets and are about precisely the topic of this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your original quote:
>Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy
>help assess
FYI, "help assess" =/= "dictate". Like I said, google is only a helpful tool, and not a silver bullet. Also, are you denying that your search absolutely does not have irrelevant entries? I suggest you have a look over it again. Finally, from WP:GOOGLETEST:
>Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. (#Notability)
>A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. (#Interpreting results)
Pretty much what I said earlier. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just want to note that I feel that this topic is edging closer to notability, because US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman was apparently spotted at one of the failed protest sites, and there has been some consternation about it. I'm not ready to change my view of the article yet (depends on whether the Huntsman incident really blows up or not), but we should be aware of this event for our discussion here.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Some people have the misconception that there was a small "incident" to speak of, but that it did not lead to any change in the government. The current title, "2011 Chinese protests", is extremely misleading in that regard. From outside China came an anonymous online call to revolution that was inaccessible to Chinese, some ignorant media hype in the about that, and nothing materialized in meatspace. This does not merit its own article, and can instead have a terse mention in the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article. Quigley (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Something materialised in meatspace: there was a heavy police presence and 15 people were arrested. Not large by Chinese standards, but not nothing.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
But does 15 arrests warrant an article? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No. 15 arrests establishes that an event occurred. The interest shown in the event by some people warrants an article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with that assumption. If arrests establish that an event occurred and that the event is notable for Wikipedia, then we would have May 2010 Derpville High School, California drug ring arrests, November 2010 Graham High School, Illinois drug ring arrests, July 1998 Moscow sexual assault cases, August 2006 pedophile arrests in Adelaide, South Australia, etc etc. Yet, we clearly don't. As for "interest in the topic", media hype can easily generate unwarranted interest. If the media reported on the May 2010 Derpville High School, California drug ring arrests and made a huge deal of it (e.g. "oh noes bad people are filling our kids with drugs"), then there would be interest in it. In our case, "oh noes the reds are abusing their own people again, revolution yay" is sucking people in using a similar manner. Although it would be harsh to claim that the general population of laypeople are sheep being fed with prolefeed, it isn't entirely a false idea either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It isn't our job to decide whether the attention the issue is receiving is warranted or not. I worry that that is the subtext of this entire deletion discussion: the sense that the topic is does not deserve the attention it has received, and that wrong should be righted on Wikipedia.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
However, don't you think that any notability from this topic is being puffed by Wikipedia contributors? Notability shouldn't be something that can be written out of nothing by someone. See Wikipedia:Bombardment, Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability, Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, WP:NEWSBRIEF. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I am skeptical of the argument that those who would keep the article from deletion are puffing its notability because they want it to be notable. Without any specific evidence, it seems to be as much an ad-hominem as my accusing those who are pro-deletion of being part of the 五毛黨 would be. The article, as it stands, has many valid references in reputable news outlets: it is not for us to say that these sources are sensationalistic and should be discarded (that would be WP:OR). Notability shouldn't be something that can be erased into nothing by a Wikipedian. --Thezeus18 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Though the main focus of the article is actually on how foreign media reported almost religiously on the protests, which they themselves admits, are small and is receiving unproportionate attention. Keeping the article at its current status is, IMO, definitely unacceptable. So delete it, on the grounds that it's just a media hype (deliberate or not), or merge it with MENA articles since that's where it orginated, or rename it into (better worded) 'media hype on tiny chinese protests, with an over-reacting government, started by activists (i.e. Boxun)'. Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That's one particular interpretation of the events and coverage, yes, but that's so far from NPOV that you'd have to catch a plane to get back. Wikipedia has articles on many things that I think it could survive without having articles on, many phenomena created entirely by the media. These are kept because Wikipedians are not here to decide what is and isn't a stupid use of the media's time, they are here to summarize and provide references to the work of others. We have no control over what the news decides to report, and when it does so in such a volume as it has on this topic, we cannot ignore it solely because we have the better judgment to deem it frivolous. If you have references to sources that show these events to be less important than the "foreign media" attests, by all means present them and that opposing perspective can be fused into the article, or the article can be deleted when it is obvious that that view is the consensus. Otherwise, all you've got is a lot of WP:OR opinions about what should and shouldn't have been reported by the media, and a few Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Crystal ball predictions of future unimportance thrown in to sweeten the broth. --Thezeus18 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh? All I said was that this is actually more about the media reports than the actual protests, so focus on that. I didn't say ignore whatever the media says and act with our own views. That's why one of my suggestions is to rename the article to reflect that this is more about the media reports than the actual protest. Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
And the merge suggestion is based on the fact that most media reports actually relate this to the MENA events, not as a standalone event. How's that WP:OR? Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere, probably the 2011 Middle East protest article or 2011 Tunisian revolution article, since this is an effect of that. It definitely should not be named "2011 China protests", since there have been other protests, some of them notable (as they have even been reported in the Chinese press!) in 2011 in China, with nothing to do with these. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete The only "protesters" that took to the squares of Beijing and Shanghai were just bystanders who were wondering what the hell all of those foreign cameramen and Chinese police were doing. There are currently no anti-government protests in China. --Tocino 06:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please read the article again. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences says there are about 60 to 80 thousand "mass incidents" per year, or at least, there were in 2006 and 2007. This is RS'd. This is not direct proof that there have been thousands of protests in January and February 2011 in the PRC, but it makes the claim that "there are currently no anti-government protests in China" rather difficult to believe. Do you think that the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences overestimates the true level of dissent in the PRC? Boud (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As was explained above, those 60 to 80 thousand are largely unconnected events concerning local economic issues, not political rights. See e.g. this interview with Yu Jianrong. (I know that this is state controlled media, but Yu is a well known scholar from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, whose statistics you just cited for the number of mass incidents, so it makes sense that he would know what they are) Connecting these unrelated local protests to the middle east instability in an article is an improper synthesis.--Danaman5 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The main argument in favour of deletion seems to be that the 20 February protest was more or less just a frivolous use of the internet, rather than a serious revolutionary movement. However, Xu Zhiyong and Teng Biao, two of the main organisers of the Open Constitution Initiative, have both been arrested. Have a look what the Wikipedia knows about the Open Constitution Initiative - it sounds like a long term democracy project by lawyers and academics. The seriousness of these activists has already been WP:RS'd - e.g. the ABC report (presently ref 12) presently used, which calls them "high-profile Chinese activists and human rights lawyers". Boud (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It was definitely not a serious revolutionary movement. The 'activists' may want it to be so, but it didn't come close to it. Numerous RS show that the actual protest itself was small, there might have been a few arrests but nothing more. These kind of things happen all the time, and many activists in China get arrested and released after a while, then arrested again sometime later for something else. It's no big deal. Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
i don't understand why you seem to dismiss the Open Constitution Initiative organisers as "not serious", and i don't understand why you use the past tense. The organisers have clearly said the plan is to have a sustained movement with weekly gatherings. Boud (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they said they plan to have a sustained weekly gathering, but that doesn't mean it should get its own article. They planned this 13-city major protest as well, but it didn't work because few people turned up. The weekly gathering is still a plan. So maybe this should be put under the Open Consititution Initiative article or something? I used past tense because i was refering to the 20th Feb protest, which is in the past. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe i didn't explain clearly enough: the 20 Feb actions are (presumably) the first step in the "sustained weekly gathering" plan. These are not two separate plans (based on my understanding of the RS's and common sense). So "as well" in your sentence seems to be wrong, and so the second half of the sentence is also wrong. It is impossible to say that the sustained weekly gathering plan has failed without waiting for a few weeks. It is also impossible to say that it has been a success. If you are talking only about the 20 Feb protest, then that's not the main topic of discussion in the deletion debate. Boud (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no RS to prove that they planned weekly gatherings before the 20th Feb incident. It came from your 'understanding' of the RS and your 'common sense'. My common sense tells me that they planned the 20th Feb first, then realise that it is not working, and turned to 'weekly gatherings'. Even if you can find an RS about it, then this should be catrgorised under 'news that is still happening which may become notable but isnt yet' (im sure theres a wiki policy about it, but i don't know which one. Im a newbie.) So restore the article when it becomes big news. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Since nothing significant has happened, it is not worth a separate article. The content may be summarized to a paragraph or two or probably a subsection in related articles. Took (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article is beginning to look like a borderline WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:ADVOCACY, especially following these edits. I for one find this of great concern. It's as if the article is saying "the following circumstances are bad. You should help us in our cause", indirectly at least. I think that the listing of "demands" is being indirectly used as a propaganda insert; the consequences of this could be undesirable, given Wikipedia's strong readership and ability of information penetration. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promotion, and right now the article almost seems like that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate edits being made to the article are irrelevant to a discussion about the notability of the topic in question.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is why this is obviously a good-faith FYI comment, and not a !vote. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out the premise of this discussion. Actually, scratch that. Such things are perfectly relevant. Might I remind you that notability is not the only factor in an AfD. Policy violations such as WP:ADVOCACY also have their weight in a deletion discussion. Articles that are not up to standard with any policy, not just WP:N, face the potential for deletion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Not true, I suggest that you read WP:DEL#REASON.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Also irrelevant as you have already voted. Concerns about inappropriate content in the article should be discussed on the Talk page of the article, not on this page. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, dear sir, but I must disagree. Inappropriate content is one of the reasons for deletion. This is certainly not just "talk page material". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So, then people who are interested in this event in China should read about it in an article about the Middle East and North Africa?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I think yes. With your reasoning, every subsection of every wikipedia article should be made an article, since people might want to read about that section only?Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There are probably a lot of subsections in Wikipedia that could be made into interesting articles if there were editors interested in doing so and sources available. This subsection doesn't need to be made into an article: the article already exists, with plenty of sources, and you are trying to delete it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am trying to get it deleted. I am sure that lots of subsections can be made into articles if someone is interested. However, many of them remain 'sections' because they are not notable enough to get an article on its own. IMO, such as this one. As many people said above in the discussion, not many people were involved, there wasn't anything big happening (e.g.violence, deaths). There were a few arrests, but arrests doesn't make it notable. If every protest that is the same as or bigger than this one qualifies for an article, then Wikipedia is going to filled with these things. How many protests have there been in the world? The only thing that makes this slightly different is that some claim that it is related to the MENA events. At most, this should be merged into an article about the influence of the MENA events. Even this have some questions attached to it such as are the protests ACUTUALLY related to the MENA? Not all protests the same. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
>...should read about it in an article about the Middle East and North Africa?
Well, yes. The events that occurred in the ME and N.Africa are notable. The failed protest that happened in China is not. It would make sense for, if any "xyz news suggests that A has a relation to B" is included, for it to be in the ME/NA article, as a minor mention in a minor subsection of a larger, more notable topic article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What makes this protest different from thousands if not millions of protests around the world (most of which are larger than this one and are not articles) happening every year is that it is vaguely related to the MENA events, as claimed by the organisers of this. So put it under some article about the influence of the MENA events. Or, in my opinion, delete it since it is not notable.Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's the only thing or the main thing that makes this protest more notable than the typical protest. What makes it notable is that people are very interested in talking about it, there was a surprisingly heavy police presence, there was linked activity in multiple cities, a number of dissidents, writers, and lawyers as well as putative organisers have been arrested or harassed apparently in response, and Hu Jintao suggested tighter controls on the internet possibly in response. Its notability is attested by the large number of sources available about it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedians are very interested to talk about it here, since, you know, we are discussing whether to delete this article or not. But not in the 'everybody talks about it on street and it appears on the 6 o'clock news' type of discussion. Heavy police presence, yes, but not surprising, happens often, its not like as if a whole district was shut off. There were a few more police standing on the street. Linked activities in 2 cities out of the 13 proposed on 20 Feb, and not much happened. People get arrested doesn't make it notable, a LOT of people get arrested everyday for various things. Also, there were only 15 recorded in the article, you get more on a drug arrest. Even with these people, some of them were arrested and released and arrested again later, so put it under their own article if they have one. Hu Jintao says a lot of things, not all are notable, I mean, he gives talks to government officials on a daily basis, should we include them all in an article?Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean that Wikipedians are interested in talking about it here. I was thinking of the media coverage of this story, for example, in the examples below by Arilang, as well as many others. Do you have a source that says that the police presence in response to the call for protests is typical? I've read that it has been quite disproportionate to the number of actual protestors. As for the linkage, even at only 2 cities, you still had coordinated protests in different parts of China, which is very unusual. As for the arrests, my point was that they were arrests of particularly noteworthy people. Another notable thing about the Wangfujing protest, which I forgot to mention above, is the whole John Huntsman broohaha. My point is not necessarily that any one of these characteristics by itself makes the story notable, but together they do.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my comments below about other Chinese protests on Wiki (such as Tibet 2008) and this ebing a 'spin-off' of the MENA events. Now to respond directly to your comments, the use of police in stopping protests (though most protests in China are non-political and regional) is usual. I will look for sources. 2 cities, IMO, doesn't count as linkage, 5+ or something does. 2 people out of the 15 arrested on the first occasion have their own (very short) Wikipedia articles, no that noteworthy. The seven arrested on the second occasion don't even have names. There are many Chinese anti-government activists, most based in foregn countries. Those who are still in China get arrested very often but then get released when things cool down a bit, then they get arrested for something else, next time, so the arrests cannot support the notability. Also note, 15+7=23 were arrested, they get more on a medium-sized drug surprise arrest. John Huntsman thing is notable within this event, not notable out of this. Also, he claimed that he was just passing by, I don't believe it, but you know, that kind of puts the full stop on this. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge or Rename A protest gathering of a few people is not notable enough to be worth an article. In fact, there are hundreds of peasant protests in China every year with more participation. It should be merged. I would also vote for a rename, since it was mentioned in the Western media. --Voidvector (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Straight from this NYTimes article: "No protests of any note have taken place in China since calls for Middle East-style demonstrations were first published on an American Web site two months ago." --Voidvector (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename, Chinese Jasmine Revolution was, and is a hot topic being discussed in Twitter accounts [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], as well as Chinese Google Buzz, Bloomberg [15], RFI [16], FccChina.org [17], Reuters [18], The Globe and Mail [19], CNN [20], Forbes [21], WSJ [22] BBC Chinese [23] CBS News video [24] McClatchy.com [25]. Saying that it is not notable is just unbelievable. Arilang talk 09:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Since when are social networking sites RS for notability? Should we give every group/status on facebook that has thousands or even millions of followers/replies/likes an article? See WP:N and WP:RS (Quote WP:N :"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." and WP:RS :"...personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.") Also, few Chinese people use Twitter (blocked) and Google buzz (few have actually heard of it anyway. Zlqq2144 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment And with Bloomberg and RFI, they are just more news articles. Not discussions. Bloomberg have numerous comments made by people who don't want to mention their names. Suspicious. RFI is just a news update on what happened today, not that different from 20th Feb, really.Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Reuters kind of supports my opinion: police still stepped up security (but they did that last week), 7 were arrested (15 last week) and few people turned up. Out of the 27 proposed, only 2 actually had anything going on (2/13 last week, with 2 extra ones, making 4) It says in the article that it was impossible to tell who were shoppers and who were protesters. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Note I am separating these comments because Arilang is adding to them as I comment.Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment The Globe and Mail article was from 26th Feb, predicting (wrongly) what would happen today.Zlqq2144 (talk)
    • Seriously, these are just more sources, whose reliability I have doubts for and have not checked. There are many more in the reference section of the article. Why bother? Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It was impossible to tell who were simply shoppers and who had shown up to support silently the call to demonstrate(Reuters). This looks like a joke to me, it seems they are not even sure were there any protesters or not there. Atoms78errt (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • CommentYes, I could just say that everybody at the Times square today are just answering to my call from some secret place online to protest against the US government. It was a massive success! On a more serious side, they chose crowded places, no wonder many people appeared at the sites. Zlqq2144 (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The only articles on Wikipedia that are dedicated to a single protest concerning China are :Olympics 08 relay protest (not even in China), 2008 Tibetan unrest, Urumuqi 2009, XinJiang 2009 (related to Urumuqi)and the 2008 Uyghur unrest. I came to this result by searching various terms such as 'China unrest', 'China protest', etc on Wikipedia. Note that these are all huge incidents, involving violence and deaths. They involve a lot of people and have attracted way more attention than this one. So why should this one, much smaller than any of those mentioned above, have its own article? Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Also note that many incidents like this happen in China, and other countries for that matter, some of them gets recorded on Wikipedia, and even less have its own article. Just look at the actual protest, it is SMALL. Sure, the Chinese police were controlling it, but if this is anything near what MENA incidents were like, then they need the army, not just some police, dogs and cars. Therefore, this is not big enough to have its own article. Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know this is the wrong place, but I just wonder, is user Zlqq2144 a sockpuppet account? There is no record of his wiki contribution at all in other articles, and a newbie(he called himself) just could not learn so many things in a couple of days, and the talkpage is empty. Can Zlqq2144 explain a bit? Arilang talk 12:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. Though I can understand where you came from. I edited virtually nothing before this (apart from a few typo-correcting minor edits). I registered in Nov 2008, though that's not really a solid proof as I understand. I take the learning fast thing as a compliment, thank you. Though I don't know what I have learnt that is too fast. Policies? Yeah, I read Wiki policies for fun when Im bored and have no access to other websites and Im still inexperienced. Uploading images? I went to WP:Images. Uhm, references, I went to WP:reference. What else? Reverting edits? Basically, I have been using and interested in Wikipedia since 2008, but until recently, have not made a move to edit. Strange, I understand, but I am not a sockpuppet. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
My apology to Zlqq for asking this unnecessary question. I am sorry. Still, it is very rare to see a newbie fighting every opponents in a AfD debate like he does. Arilang talk 13:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It's alright. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to 'Still, it is very rare to see a newbie fighting every opponents in a AfD debate like he does'. I have a history of 'fighting', or debating opponents on other forums and websites. I just used experiences from those. In the end, Wiki's talk/delete/discussion pages, in my opinion, are just a more civilised and upgraded version of a forum debate. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Ch'eesus guys, this is an AfD discussion, not a talkpage. Don't start section headers on your own now. I've started a new dotpoint for you, you can continue on from there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Benlisquare, I started another section header is because the page is getting too long. Also I like to leave a comment with Zlqq, in my opinion, AfD debate is about "Notability", yet he is pushing his own POV here, it only gives him negative marks. I may be wrong. Arilang talk 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please give examples of POV pushing. I admit that there might have been some POV, but most have been supported with evidence. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, this is becoming meta-talk. I suggest you both take it to one of your user talkpages. We're straying from the main AfD discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Let's go to mine, since its less crowded. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Preferably into democracy movement in China pages rather than middle eastern protests, to which this is only tangentially related. When and if this becomes more noteworthy it can be spun off into its own article. --Quadalpha (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

CommentThe fact that CNN, Bloomberg, Reuters, Forbes, Jordan Pouill, China correspondent for LaVie and other publications, Adrienne Moog of NBC, Mark Mackinnon of The Globe and Mail, Tom Lasseter, Beijing Bureau Chief for McClatchy Newspapers, Melissa Chan, Al Jazeera English's correspondent in China, all these people were there to report this one single event, and this incident alone, is worth a wikipedia article, by whatever name, revolution or not. Arilang talk 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To return to a comment I made above, the only Wikipedia articles involving Chinese protests are ones like Tibet 2008, with lots of violence and some deaths. Those are reported way more than this. Also, most of these reports actually suggest that it was just the nervous government sending out a bit too much police even though few people turned up. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I feel that this just means that this event happened, and was not exexaggerated, so it can be used in article. It doesn't, IMO, mean that it can have its own sources. As I have said on numerous occasions before, there are many protests in China (out of the 60-80k a year) which are bigger than this. They are not articles, the shouldn't be, since that would mean like 20k more articles about small protests in China on Wikipedia. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There may be millions of unknown and unreported incidents in China, none of them is like this incident, which enjoyed the attention, and focus of the media of the whole world. This one is a "Notable" incident. Arilang talk 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Then our opinions differ on if those sources of yours make this event notable. We'll have to see what other people think. Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete the foreign media are trying to whip up another spectre of Egyptian, Libyan and Tunisian revolutions, when there isn't even a mild tremour in China smacks of the foreign media trying to manufacture news or forment a revolution. In reality, this is much ado about nothing. Firm delete. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

After the new protest today, i would say keep. I wonder why English media hardly report about it. Here, in Germany every newspaper report about it ([26][27][28]) --one-eyed pirate 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

'Jasmine Revolution' is not a revolution but the name of some online forum getting people to stroll outside MacDonalds - that bastion of American imperialism- amongst other places. The state apparatus is in a heightened state of alert to prevent a rerun of 4 June 1989. Most people who habitually go to Wangfujing or Dongmen in this densely populated country will know the feeling of overcrowding, whilst most foreigners need to experience it to believe it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Whether an event deserves an Wikipedia article is based on its notability, not whether the protests materialise in actual political pressure. As the original AfD nominator said, there is a lot of foreign media speculation. The amount of foreign media coverage on the event is clear evidence that the protests constitute a notable event discussed by reliable sources. --Deryck C. 22:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep name has been changed. Very useful article. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no revolution and the protests aren't more notable than others reported in recent year. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like content forking [29] since most media sources comment on how the MENA events was what gave the activists the idea to start this, whereas the actual protest is small. It is, at most, a 'spin-off' event of the middle east events, so it should be placed in an article related to that, or articles related to the Chinese activists since they started this. Look at the section related to this in the MENA article [30](the current version has that section deleted, for unexplained reason), the only other one with a separate article is the Albanian one, and 20,000 people attended that one. Note the Gabon one, with 5,000 protestors, nobody (as far as I know) is trying to have an article on that. This Chinese protest is probably closer to the Cameroon protest, but they actually have a significant number of protestor, and was outnumbered by the police (where in China, the number of protestors can almost be counted on a single hand?). Also look at the Vietnam one, I think that is probably closer to this one, with 'rare protests' in the city. And with Zimbabwe, dozens of activists were arrested, sound familiar? Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
In the past 10 years mainland never had more than 10,000 participants in any protest at one time. At most, it is a couple thousand spread across many days. On top of that, most CPC organizations play down headcounts. Pro-CPC organizations typically reduce the protester count by 20-50%. See HK protests for example. And I am sure you don't have this many fingers to count it all in one hand. Benjwong (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
VOA as a RS in this situation is debatable, see talk page. Also, as said in other RS, the 200 people at the protest site was mainly onlookers, normal shoppers and an unusual number of foreign reporters. The actual number of protestors was low. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not complaining about any one source. I am complaining about the over-emphasis on headcount. Benjwong (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we emphasise on headcount? It is a protest, more supporters means larger impact, more notability, etc. What should we, in your opinion, put an emphasis on? Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not say avoid headcount. It just seems like 15 of your last comments is to point out there are low participants. When obviously this government has never been protest-friendly. If you are going to say people are afraid to show up. You need to say the security forces are armed with AK47 to "balance" the reasoning. I'll continue the chit-chat some other time. Benjwong (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If the discontent of the people is really at the notable level, then people will not be afraid of the AK-47s (need source to prove it, since in other protests and unrests, Chinese police usually use riot shields and occasionally tear gas and rarely kill people), like the people of the MENA countries. Zlqq2144 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, you need sources for the 20-50% reduced headcount. Zlqq2144 (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See various figures quoted on Hong Kong 1 July marches. (I understand that using that to argue 20-50% is synthesis ie. probably original research, so I'm only using it in this debate, not on the article itself.) --Deryck C. 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It's quite irrelevent to the topic here so I won't discuss further apart from saying that Hong Kong is quite different from mainland China due to historical, political and cultural reasons. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a reference picture to a security group armed with some guns. Ok so is a different model. Benjwong (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
[31] I have no idea what the content says, but note two things. First, the date, this was from 2009. Second, scroll down to a gallery of pictures, one of them is the picture you gave me. Wow, the ability to see into the future. Scratch that. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
If your source is more accurate (and it looks to be), then according to google translate that picture is from the 2009 Urumqi riots. And that blog site I found earlier actually misused the picture either purposely or accidentally. In that case that blog site is misleading and no good. I will agree with you there 100%. However, there is still one problem. This image basically give citizens the impression that guns can be used against them since 2009. And if they are not intimiated by guns this time, they maybe intimidated by large number of security force. Instead of me looking for sources. It is actually best that you find us sources to suggest your reason for deletion. Such as the citizens are happy, and this whole jasmine thing was a false alarm etc. Benjwong (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources that say citizens are happy? Just watch CCTV news reports. The thing is, most sources that say citizens are happy are, rightly or wrongly, often accused of being CN propaganda, therefore people always argue that they do not meet the NPOV thing. (Whilst the people who say that the citizens are unhappy, e.g. the activists who started this, are rarely accused, rightly or wrongly, of justing trying to bring down the CPC, instead of actually concerning about the public) However, if you look at the external evidences, such as the UN HDI, Transparency International's Corruption index, GDP per capita and proportion of people in porverty etc, you will see that the life of a normal chinese citizen has being improving dramatically over the years, arguably, faster than any other country in the world (of similar size). That also eliminates the factor of one-party system, since they are doing a good job, why would normal people, who don't care about politics, be unhappy? The only other thing you can critisise is the freedom of speech issue, and China is becoming freer (sp?) too, you see tons of media critising the government, e.g. 南方周刊, and they are legal. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh and regarding that picture, the Urumuqi thing was a riot, it had more participants from the start and the police was only involved when things got violent and there were deaths. Per the wikipedia article on this. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. I think you need to NOT track GDP, corruption index etc. While I don't doubt those people's lives are improving. The missing statistics (and doesn't even belong in this article) is the legal and illegal emigration. Happy countries don't lose massive amounts of its citizens to other countries every year. Benjwong (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is straying off topic. Though i've never said that China has the best standard of living, only that it is improving at an incredible speed. There are lots of people who don't want to stay and help but choose to go to another country where life is better. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As in, the people are happy that the government is doing good things (generally speaking) and life is improving, not that they have the best life in the world. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to get back to the topic. The point is that there are people in PRC with "reasonable" complaints. And this jasmine thing/protest is a legit event and article. Benjwong (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Every country has that. This protest is small, if you want to concentrate on the complains, then create a general article focused on that, something like 'cricism/complaints/etc of PRC'. If you just base the reasoning on the complains, then any protest of any scale should be an article since most of them are based on reasonable complaints.Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete-you can not call this protests if there were no signs of actual protests.[32][33]Atoms78errt (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    Participating in these protests exposes one to persecution by government authorities. They would claim to be "just looking" to media reports even if they were part of the protests. In a country where protesting against the government is strictly suppressed in practice, you can't use the same standards to judge what counts as a protest like you do in democratic countries where such rights are protected by law. --Deryck C. 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If the discontent of the people is actually notable, then they will start some kind of a protest. e.g. if a lot of people are discontent, they could just change the location on the day, maybe not everyone will receive the message, but there will be some kind of protest. Saying that the government is suppressing the protest so even if there isn't one we should keep the article is a bit POV-ish? How do you know that there really isn't one? Very few sources actually suggest that there were lots of discontented people, they just emphysise on the heavy police presence and the organisers. Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Before the protesters get a chance to speak, they have already been intimidated by their own government. They never got a chance to express their discontent. So logically you are not going to have any sources about it. Benjwong (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, how do you know that people are too scared to speak, instead of don't have a problem. It is a bit POV saying that its because the Chinese government suppressed the public. Another point I made earlier, if the discontent of the people is notable, then the police will not stop them from expressing their views one way or another. e.g. change the location on the day? Anyhow, IMO, it's a bit POV there. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Even if some were to say they were "just looking", wouldn't it be WP:OR to assume that they weren't? It isn't ours to make that kind of assumption. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    This is not entirely original. Observe the way BBC paraphrased "protest march" as "strolling" (散步) in the last paragraph of this report. --Deryck C. 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I've misread or something, but aren't they all comments left by netizens? and the BBC hasn't reported anything. So these are just comments, from un-indentifiable (sp?) sources. How does that count? Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever said that just because the government supposedly suppresses its own people would logically mean the people are protesting is laughable. By your logic, the entirety of North Korea is protesting as it is being suppressed by its government. However, you ABSOLUTELY FAIL to realise the flaw in your logic. Why? Because the Middle Eastern protests have demonstrated to us that even a government holding a gun to our heads would still be able to facilitate not just protests, but whole revolutions. So what are you going to do now? Say that the Chinese are cowards and so they want to protest but just don't have the guts to? Absurd. Absolutely absurd. This article deserves a strong delete, as NOTHING has happened at all. You're furthermore alluding to how the protestors would protest by 'strolling' by. I also hereby declare that all Americans protest at Times Square by strolling by too. By that logic, I'd have lots of protestors 'strolling by'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.6.72 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you my sockpuppet? This is like a more radical version of what I said here [34]. On a more seious side, i agree.Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm being alluded to by 220.245.6.72? I'd like to point out that I didn't conjure a brand new logical argument in this section of the discussion. I'm merely reusing an argument that's also used by multiple news media around the world. I would also like to point out that drawing parallels to the Middle Eastern protests and North Korea in determining whether these count as protests and whether these are notable is an Other stuff exists argument, which is unhelpful in this discussion. --Deryck C. 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Whilst the original title of the article was misguided, I think the recent events are worthy of a stand-alone article. Whilst there many protests in China every year, it is very rare for there to be coordinated campaigning in different cities outside of areas like Tibet and Hong Kong (obviously there's only one city in HK but you get my point) and in consecutive weeks. At the very least the deletion of the article is premature. What has been going on has been widely reported. At the very least I think that we should wait a month or two to see if anything further happens. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not actually very coordinated, since only 2 cities responded out of the 13 the first time, and 2 on the second time. The organisers propose 10+, 20+ cities but nothing happens in most of them. The existence of this article, as I see it, can be considered premature, since it is not major news yet. We can always restore it once it becomes major news. Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yet the plans are themselves significant. Most protests in China aren't planned and happen over what might be considered minor disputes in other countries. The fact that protests haven't been happened across China doesn't matter. Whether this is major news is subjective. I would say that it would be premature to delete the article at this early stage. Also, doesn't HK fall under "China"? I was under the impression that they were one country. John Smith's (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes they are, did I say/imply that they are not? I meant:"Yes HK is part of China." The original one was unclear.Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, most protests are planned, by the same/similar activists who planned this one. Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In China, most protests are not planned in as far as they're usually a quick reaction to something that has happened in a local area. The planning of these protests is more considered. John Smith's (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Most protests are non-political and they aren't planned. The protests I was talking about, which perhaps I didn't make clear, refers to political, especially pro-democracy protests planned by activists. Such as this one. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The plans are somewhat interesting because it contrasted the Chinese response to the Middle Eastern response. Whereas there were widespread unrest and revolutions in numerous countries, the impact on China was minimal. With that said, this is still not eventful enough to deserve a standalone page for now. One can simply write a paragraph or three about this in a subsection of Jasmine Revolution/Protest describing how this thing was overhyped by Western media. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Stripe down the cruft or rename When strip away all the cruft, one cannot help but wonder the question: where is the actual protest? 30% content is the protest plans, 10% content is on protests in Taiwan, 20% content is on government arresting dissents before the protest even happened, and the rest is on police assaulting journalists/pedestrians who are not really participants. This entire article seems more like describing an anonymous internet prank played on government paranoia, and a massive "Strike Hard" Campaign was launched against nothing as response. Either rename the article to 2011 dissident crackdowns in China or refocus the article on the actual protest in China. Jim101 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jim101, the whole ordeal looking more and more like a Year 2000 problem scale internet prank, with the PRC police staging a nation wide show of force over some invisible protesters. The plot runs much better than many Hollywood blockbuster movies. How about "Chinese Jasmine Internet Prank" as a name? Arilang talk 05:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah, too sensational. Let's stick to what is actually notable, which is a massive crackdown on dissidents in China. Jim101 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Chinese Jasmine non-protest" sounds good too. Arilang talk 06:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not our job to make up catchy names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states just stick to When, Where and What happened. When is 2011, Where is China, and What actually happened is a massive crackdown on dissidents, while Jasmine Revolution and protests did not happen. This is why I proposed the name 2011 dissident crackdowns in China. Jim101 (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - The article began as a subset of the events in Tunisia. Don't think the article could stand on its own feet in feb e.g. recentism and WP:crystal. Looking at the article just now, seems to be whole lot better in neutrality, cohesion and facts based information. Article has taken a life of its own through snowball media coverage. As mentioned above, very little physical protest but more about scuffles, protest plans --Visik (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Some people are discussing on the talkpage what the name should be. Many already agreed the article names are only temporary. Benjwong (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. We must take into consideration the conditions under which protests happen, and not just the actual numbers.--Natkeeran (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
And what conditions are you talking about?Zlqq2144 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The portion of protests that occurred in Taiwan with Chen Yunlin is enough of an event and condition. Benjwong (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Most people who protested, i.e. the 绿营 people who supports Taiwan being an individual country, always protest and try to stop Beijing-Taiwan relationship. This is just an excuse, they would have done it even without the jasmine thing. It's not the first time and it's not even a big one. If you require sources, I'll find you one but this is really common knowledge for anyone interested in those affairs. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter which camp they belong to, an event is an event. Just based on that, we should be closing the deletion request. Enough has already happened. Benjwong (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
They've done it many times before, none of them are articles. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of individual articles of taiwan protests. Just go up and down the year articles like 2008 in the Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
By all means put this article into that category, if you feel that Taiwan bit is the main thing. Note that Taiwan is not a de facto part of PRC. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This event is not notable enough as of now. There is no evidence that anything has actually happened. The amount of people who protested is very low if any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.1.125 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User Zlqq2144 is busy arguing for the deletion of this article, at the same time he is busy doing it's editing and engaging in talkpage discussion. I can't help to speculate that there are more than one person using the account. Arilang talk 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on, take off your tin foil hat and WP:AGF. Next you're going to argue that all the IPs voting for deletion are socks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I...I...I have nothing to say to that. As of now. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq2144 could be a wiki-Mr. Hyde. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's just stop it there. -_-!Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Another reason to keep: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-03-china04_ST_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.237.155 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Not a reason. Last time I checked, statements in the English language began with a proposition, and ended with evidence, and did not have URL segments such as "http" in them. I speak human, not computer. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    You're right, especially useful is going directly to the South China Morning Post: in the 27 Feb Shanghai demo:
    1. there were enough protestors such that the protestors prevented police from arresting one of themselves
    2. protestors talked to foreign journalists, "snatched" the journalists' name cards
    3. protestors joked to each other about the police
    4. at least one spoke "clearly within earshot of police officers", promising to come back and demonstrate the following two Sundays
    How many PRC anti-government protests take place where protestors prevent at least one police arrest? The SCMP and USA Today both seem to see notability in the protests. Boud (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Time to close the debate, any admin here? Arilang talk 23:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It still seems pretty active. Have we reached any conclusions yet? My feeling is that there isn't a clear majority in terms of opinion though I didn't do any exact counting. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
What Arilang means is probably for this to end on a no consensus. Though I do wonder, if it does end on no consensus, what happens to the article? I assume that it's kept, but that kinds of is a keep, which isn't the result of a no consensus discussion. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The consensus seems to me that the article will be kept and its relevance will be reviewed later (I suggest in a month), since the protests are a weekly institution and might either fizzle or really change something in China. In case they will have changed anything, it is good to have documented the starting of this historical change on WP. Zhangjiandong (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:Crystalball and WP:POV and we are not the ones to decide the result of this.Zlqq2144 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
section of copypasta

Talk:2011 Chinese protests#Deletion Debate Arilang talk 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

    • Arilang, it's not your job to be moving talk for other people. Also, given that most have already taken part in the discussion here, doing so counts as double voting. In other words, what the blueberry muffins are you doing? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a hint, that there are three redirections 2011 protests in Bahrain, 2011 protests in Egypt, 2011 protests in Tunisia not unrelated to the article in question. If an admin decides on the general question of deletion or keeping, it would be good to have a redirection from "2011 protests in China" to the article named "2011 Chinese protests". A user looking for it most likely would start typing "2011 protests" and then see the autofill options "Bahrain, China, Egypt, Tunisia". Zhangjiandong (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Not a talk page. Don't go creating new section headers on your own. If you are new to Wikipedia, I suggest reading the many WP:HELP pages available. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • 李博杰, I think you're over-reacting a bit. Zhangjiandong was giving suggestions on how to deal with the aftermath of this debate, which I think is relevant to the discussion. --Deryck C. 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I was referring how he was ===Doing this=== in the middle of an AfD discussion. I personally have nothing against what he said; I suggested that he read some help pages, as I assumed he was new. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone close this debate please, everything need to be said had already been spoken. Arilang talk 10:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
And why, Arilang? Are you paramount leader of Wikipedia? The discussion is clearly still active, as there are edits on this page every few hours. When an admin feels that a discussion has gone on enough, they will close the debate. For now, we wait for someone to make that decision; neither you, nor me, calls the shots. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, an admin will come and close the discussion when it's time. There are a few admins around in this discussion, although it'd be inappropriate for any of them to close the discussion because of conflict of interest. --Deryck C. 15:05, 4 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Articles_for_deletion/Jasmine_Revolution_in_China&oldid=16600338"