Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of banned items in China

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 Censorship in the People's Republic of China. Merge to Censorship in the People's Republic of China (some material - such as the music - is already in that article) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned items in China

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There may be lists of banned books, of banned television shows, or of banned video games, but each of these have reliable sources that document the topic as a whole. This list (of banned "items", which apparently includes things ranging from "websites" to "people") is original synthesis, guided by no outside sources or consistent criteria. All of the information in this article is duplicated on or easily moved to other articles such as list of banned video games. Shrigley (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random trivia. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any souceable material into Censorship in the People's Republic of China and then delete. Lugnuts (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lugnuts on this one. Anything worth keeping could be merged into Censorship in the People's Republic of China, but a redirect is probably not necessary (I'm not sure how many people are going to be looking for lists of banned "items"). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with censorship.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be sourced to Censorship in the People's Republic of China, as suggested. Sandstein 07:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 09:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to go against the above consensus on this one, I think this is actually a legitimate topic for an article. Censorship in the People's Republic of China is clearly notable, and this list is simply a subset of that one; I don't agree that it's indiscriminate or unmaintainable, as long as it's properly sourced. The title ('banned items') is a bit vague, but the subject of the article is clear nonetheless. Robofish (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Assuming I'm allowed to vote for my own article, anyway... I know the article as it stands is not in the best shape, I was hoping after creating it, it might be spruced up by some other editors. If anyone can tell me exactly why it's being deleted, I'd be more than happy to try and address any problems with the article. It technically doesn't fall under indiscriminate because the criterion for inclusion is, itself, discriminating solely to items banned in china. I won't argue that the list of people banned in china could probably be removed but there are many ways to improve the article and make it a useful, interesting list. Just my two-cents. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Censorship is notable, indiscriminate list is not. At best, merge some examples into parent topics. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Robofish has nailed it. The list is properly sourced and individual list items appear to each be independently notable. The topic as a whole could be clarified through expanding (and reffing) the lede to emphasize the central issue of "censorship in China" and perhaps by tightening the title, but as the Censorship in China article demonstrates there does seem to be broad notability and sources directly on point. Because Ncboy2010 has expressed a willingness to address any problems with the article, if worst comes to worst I'd say incubate or userfy until it reaches a more developed state. -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Or else merge and redirect per Lugnuts. Don't delete. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of banned items in mainland China or List of banned items in the People's Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Thibbs and the others here. Deletion would eliminate useful information, not duplicated elsewhere. So the choices are merge, incubate, or userfy. Can we get to consensus? Bearian (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (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.