Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Black Police (2nd nomination)

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 to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Sandstein 07:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Black Police[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Hong Kong police have become either heros or hate figures depending on your political viewpoint. It is an unescapable fact that this article an attempt at concretising the vilification of the police for their overzealous actions and corrupt practices during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. There is nothing inherently special about the term "black cop", which is a common expression in the western world, and is widely used to criticise overzealous police officers, the existence of this article, particularly in the context of the HK protests undoubtedly violates WP:NPOV; it is an attack page just like the ones for Rupert Dover and Lau Chak-kei‎ which were both deleted as just that. In addition, I fail to see how the first AfD debate closed as "no consensus", but anyway sufficient time has now passed to re-evaluate the situation. As WP is not a soapbox, I nominate this article for deletion. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is entirely an issue of neutrality. Just because an epithet is used to express a single political viewpoint doesn't mean we cannot cover it neutrally. However, there is still a notability issue. As explored in the last debate, though this term is used in Chinese-language media, sources lack in-depth coverage of the term itself. I think per WP:RNEUTRAL, a redirect to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests would be appropriate. Perhaps even a merge would be appropriate, to a new section Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets. Does either alternative to deletion sound workable? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This term is widely used in Hong Kong and actually originated long before the 2019 protests. There's plenty of media coverage of this term and incidents related to this term. While the term itself is not neutral, we can definitely cover it in a neutral manner; to refuse to cover a notable non-neutral topic is to practice censorship. Same article has been nominated for deletion and merger (to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets) on Chinese Wikipedia, but was eventually kept as is. -- 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚 （Talk） 05:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has only increased since the last AfD discussion where I argued for "keep". Sources published since that AfD cover the origin of the term (e.g. SCMP) and the usage of the term (e.g. Ming Pao). This is in compliance with WP:NEO: cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. feminist (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the SCMP article is an opinion piece and so shouldn't really count towards WP:GNG by WP:RSEDITORIAL. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSEDITORIAL also states that The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Per SCMP's description, Lisa Lim was formerly Associate Professor and Head of the School of English at the University of Hong Kong. As an article written by a subject-matter expert, the SCMP article is reliable. feminist (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets or something similar: Looking at the sources in the article and doing a WP:BEFORE search in both English and Chinese, I don't actually see significant coverage by reliable sources for WP:GNG (although I found this article from what looks like a Master's degree course/magazine?). I see several passing mentions from reliable sources that verifies that the term exists, but WP:NEO probably applies. New sources could change my mind. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests per WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK. -Zanhe (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which is the actual topic here. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.