Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

458:. The protests aren't just related to the railway line, but to the development of Hong Kong's democracy, and as such will likely stand on their own even years from now; and there are enough sources to warrant an article on significance. The railway line, once built, will have technical features to report and will gain an operational history, thus I'm sure that that article will expand significantly in the (near) future. -- 324:
on undertaking certain actions, and quite right too. On looking back, the protests are already a part of the history of the development of the rail project. I had intended to merge these for some time, but I often like to leave things for a while, so as not to stifle article development. Luckily,
162: 96: 91: 100: 83: 156: 378:. A development project and opposition to it belong in the same encyclopedia article. They are more tightly coupled than the examples given above of incidents at the location unrelated to its construction. 205: 260:
for that same reason. The rail link protests are intimately linked to the construction of the project itself, and to my mind is well within the scope of the latter. Integration makes perfect sense. --
87: 208:. The two are closely intertwined, and the protests must be viewed in context of the project. What is more, the target page is only 21k after merger, which makes for a more complete article. 475:
as this discussion is in the wrong place. Merging is an editorial decision that doesn't require an administrator to hit the "delete" button, so should be discussed on the article talk page.
79: 71: 226:- Historic events should always be separate articles whenever possible. Any event with its own name, and of this scale should be its own article. Is the same reason we don't merge 123: 252:
bad example, I'm afraid. Temporally, the bridge was built in the 12th century, and the incident occurred at the former in the 20th century. One wouldn't even contemplate merging
353: 177: 144: 484: 467: 448: 415: 387: 367: 337: 315: 289: 268: 243: 216: 65: 138: 134: 184: 306:. So why does this event not deserve its own article? Ohconfucius should also point out why a merge now, a full year after the event. 150: 17: 253: 403: 53: 395: 299: 257: 499: 36: 438: 363: 227: 383: 498:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
402:. So why is a Construction incident a reason to automatically merge it with a train stop article? This has 321: 480: 463: 359: 285: 335: 266: 214: 444: 379: 326: 170: 411: 311: 239: 476: 459: 281: 231: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
280:
seems obvious to me. If possible both sides of a controversy should be in the same article.
330: 261: 209: 434: 399: 303: 61: 49: 407: 307: 235: 329:
of each other. I really don't see a rationale for keeping them apart any longer. --
117: 427: 57: 325:
probably because of the low traffic/interest, the articles have not become
298:
Please suggest why it is obvious. We are at the point where we have
206:
Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong Section
492:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
331: 262: 210: 394:
There is no WP rule that suggest that. Deconstruction (
201: 113: 109: 105: 80:
Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link
72:
Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link
169: 320:
It is indeed now a year since the incident. There is
183: 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 502:). No further edits should be made to this page. 354:list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions 8: 404:notability and is not an unnecessary split 348: 352:: This debate has been included in the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 398:) is not a reason to merge it with 24: 254:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings 1: 396:Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers 300:Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers 485:00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 468:12:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 449:10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 416:04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 388:15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 368:11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 338:09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 316:09:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 290:08:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 269:09:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 258:Gulou and Zhonglou (Beijing) 244:08:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 217:07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 66:00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 48:. This can be brought up at 519: 228:Marco Polo Bridge Incident 495:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 302:a separate article as 44:The result was 447: 425:per Ohconfucius. 370: 357: 232:Marco Polo Bridge 54:non-admin closure 510: 497: 443: 441: 430: 358: 333: 264: 212: 188: 187: 173: 121: 103: 50:Proposed mergers 34: 518: 517: 513: 512: 511: 509: 508: 507: 506: 500:deletion review 493: 439: 428: 400:Lehman Brothers 380:Jonathanwallace 304:Lehman Brothers 130: 94: 78: 75: 64: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 516: 514: 505: 504: 488: 487: 470: 452: 451: 419: 418: 391: 390: 372: 371: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 293: 292: 274: 273: 272: 271: 247: 246: 220: 219: 204:page merge to 193: 191: 190: 127: 74: 69: 60: 52:. Not here. ( 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 515: 503: 501: 496: 490: 489: 486: 482: 478: 474: 471: 469: 465: 461: 457: 454: 453: 450: 446: 442: 437: 436: 432: 431: 424: 421: 420: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 392: 389: 385: 381: 377: 374: 373: 369: 365: 361: 355: 351: 347: 346: 339: 336: 334: 328: 323: 322:no time limit 319: 318: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 296: 295: 294: 291: 287: 283: 279: 276: 275: 270: 267: 265: 259: 255: 251: 250: 249: 248: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 222: 221: 218: 215: 213: 207: 203: 199: 196: 195: 194: 186: 182: 179: 176: 172: 168: 164: 161: 158: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 136: 133: 132:Find sources: 128: 125: 119: 115: 111: 107: 102: 98: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 76: 73: 70: 68: 67: 63: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 494: 491: 477:Phil Bridger 473:Speedy close 472: 460:Rontombontom 455: 433: 426: 422: 375: 349: 282:Steve Dufour 277: 223: 197: 192: 180: 174: 166: 159: 153: 147: 141: 131: 45: 43: 31: 28: 332:Ohconfucius 263:Ohconfucius 211:Ohconfucius 157:free images 327:POV forks 456:No merge 408:Benjwong 308:Benjwong 236:Benjwong 224:No merge 202:Disputed 124:View log 163:WP refs 151:scholar 97:protect 92:history 435:Voting 429:Kayau 135:Google 101:delete 423:Merge 376:Merge 278:Merge 256:into 230:with 198:Merge 178:JSTOR 139:books 118:views 110:watch 106:links 58:Logan 46:close 16:< 481:talk 464:talk 445:evil 412:talk 384:talk 364:call 350:Note 312:talk 286:talk 240:talk 171:FENS 145:news 114:logs 88:talk 84:edit 62:Talk 360:cab 185:TWL 122:– ( 483:) 466:) 440:IS 414:) 406:. 386:) 366:) 356:. 314:) 288:) 242:) 234:. 200:- 165:) 116:| 112:| 108:| 104:| 99:| 95:| 90:| 86:| 56:) 479:( 462:( 410:( 382:( 362:( 310:( 284:( 238:( 189:) 181:· 175:· 167:· 160:· 154:· 148:· 142:· 137:( 129:( 126:) 120:) 82:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
Proposed mergers
non-admin closure
Logan
Talk
00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link
Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
Disputed
Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong Section

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.