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 Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion. Selectively. This is a compromise outcome, but we do have a consensus here that this does not merit a full article.  Sandstein  09:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook

2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The article still reads like a propaganda piece. Recommend deletion as the article was not rewritten to meet quality standards before repost. Lasersharp ( talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. Have already been waiting for your 2nd nomination. Now it is time to have this debate, in order to check out whether it is a propaganda or not. If not, then it requires to check why this vandalizing nomination exists. -- Yejianfei ( talk) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I don't think there exists any propaganda. -- Yejianfei ( talk) 17:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 14. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Trim extensively and merge into Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion. It doesn't read like a propaganda piece, but there are definite problems, including POV, trivia, and the fact that no other article links to it. I'm rather astonished it passes WP:N, but I think it does. That said, the article could easily be condensed to a paragraph without losing much if any notable information. Here's a suggestion:

Not sure exactly which sources I'd pick to support that condensation, and it could use a copy-edit, but I think it gets across the salient points without getting into trivial detail. Snuge purveyor ( talk) 03:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Excuse me, but it is just an event. Is it a taboo to write an article completely about an event, just like 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or 2017 Catalonia attacks? Why should it be merged into an opinion article? Should the article 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting be merged into the article LGBT#Public opinion? No, because it is just an article on an event. So why is it so difficult to regard this article as an event? -- Yejianfei ( talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I think it would also be appropriate as a paragraph on the Tsai Ing-wen article. It doesn't necessarily need to be trimmed as drastically as I did above, but I do not believe the event requires as much detail as is in the article, and would characterise the sections "Use of stickers and memes" and "Opinions" as consisting entirely of trivia. My third option would be a weak delete, as the event is not likely to have any enduring legacy. The article even claims that one view is that it was a "fun normal incident". I understand you feel protective of your work, but comparing this incident to terror attacks which killed dozens of humans is not only distasteful but a category error. Power~enwiki hits nearer the mark in comparing it to a 4chan raid. Snuge purveyor ( talk) 08:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

(1) It was an internet riot in which a specific group of people protested against another specific group of people, rather than Tsai Ing-wen. Actually, it is just like May 1998 riots of Indonesia, in which it is not suitable to say it is an incident on only one person. As a result, it is strange to ask for merging it into either Tsai Ing-wen or Chou Tzu-yu. (2) Isn't it suitable to make a separate article to talk about the 4chan raid? It is also a notable event. Why shouldn't it have a separate article? -- Yejianfei ( talk) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Your repeated comparisons of this mutual message flood to actual violence are not helping your case. Over a thousand people were killed in those riots you just linked, a government fell, and a country was born. So far, the consequences of this facebook raid are: …? The only reason I believe it passes our guideline for the notability of an event is because it was a mass circumvention of the Great Firewall. Outside of that the whole episode reads like a "reaction to" (success of the DPP in Taiwan / some kid with a flag on tv) article, which the community hates. That is why I suggested merging the content.

4chan performs many raids and to my knowledge, none of them have been notable enough to warrant their own article. That is the point of Power~enwiki's comparison below. Snuge purveyor ( talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Let's talk about WP:EVENT

(1)Lasting effects: An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Passed, people still care about it in 2017.

(2)Geographical scope: Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. Passed, the population relevant to this event is 100000 ^[1].

(3) An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. (3) Depth of coverage: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Passed, there are enough links in the "references" section.

(4) Duration of coverage: Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Passed, the links are from 2016 to 2017, long enough.

(5) Diversity of sources: Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Passed, there are news from various website, including BBC, CNN News, Reuters, the Wall Street Joural, SET News, Liberty Times, etc. -- Yejianfei ( talk) 14:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I still think this "war" is mostly POV promotion and puffery. Some Chinese people posted something on Facebook. The breathless narrative hides the fact that this is akin to a 4chan raid. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment "War" is just an euphemism for "mutual message flood", but it is more concise. Moreover, if the more accurate name "mutual message flood" is used in the title, it will seem to be an "original name" which breaks WP:NOR. -- Yejianfei ( talk) 14:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per reasons provided by Yejianfei. If there is problem with title then we can do a page move request later. D4iNa4 ( talk) 17:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Selective merge into Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion per Snuge purveyor. While a single event can be notable, it isn't always, and this is clearly the kind of event that makes more sense to read about in context. Remember, the existence of sources doesn't guarantee a standalone article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2017 (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.