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.
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
2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings into
Gulou and Zhonglou (Beijing) 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. --
Ohconfucius¡digame!09:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
It is indeed now a year since the incident. There is
no time limit 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, probably because of the low traffic/interest, the articles have not become
POV forks of each other. I really don't see a rationale for keeping them apart any longer. --
Ohconfucius¡digame!09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge. 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.
Jonathanwallace (
talk)
15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
No merge. 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. --
Rontombontom (
talk)
12:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy close 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.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
00:46, 21 January 2011 (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.