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 no consensus. Discussion indicates that this can perhaps be salvaged if some work is done on it by people familiar with the language and topic. May be renominated if that does not happen.  Sandstein  20:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Black Police[edit]

Hong Kong Black Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This appears to be a WP:Coatrack article that breaches WP:Synthesis in order to provide a platform for people to complain about the Hong Kong Police, including allegations against named individuals. The alleged logo used as an illustration is clearly faked (I've removed it). I've removed much of it already, but what's left has no sources at all that talk about the concept of "Hong Kong Black Police". I can also find no reliable sources that cover "Hong Kong Black Police" in any depth - the top Google hits are Wikipedia articles, and passing mentions to the term in sources that look like they might have copied from Wikipedia. In the version before I heavily pruned it, some of the sources did use the term "black police", but that was in passing in reports about specific incidents, and there was not one source among the English language ones that was specifically about "Black Police". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Apart from a single forum posting, the term appears not to be mentioned apart from when used in the context Hong Kong Black Police [noun], noun typically being "gloves", "cap", etc. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Absolutely fails WP:GNG by any standard. STSC (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. The term exists (e.g. [1]), but has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for solid notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant coverage in Chinese-language reliable sources, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5] etc. SSTflyer 10:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those sources appears to contain any in-depth coverage of the topic of "Hong Kong Black Police", but instead they appear to be reports of individual incidents, only some of which use the term. [2] does not appear to include the term at all (admittedly going on a Google translation), [3] appears to use it in passing in a report on a specific incident, [4] again does not appear to use the phrase. [5] uses the phrase "black police" a couple of times, but it's only a very short article and does not appear to comprise in-depth coverage of the concept. I think it's clear that the phrase "Black Police" really is in use (though not "Hong Kong Black Police"), but I'm not seeing the independent in-depth coverage of the concept that would be needed to make it into an encyclopedia topic. It still seems like WP:Synthesis to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Some additional comments: Apart from sources that support the mere existence of the term "black police", there are no sources that verify anything claimed in the body of the article. Also, not a single article Wikilinked in this article uses the term "black police". I've added a tag to every unsourced claim - I don't mean to tag bomb, but it's just to illustrate what I mean. I was going to suggest that If an article should be kept, the maximum we have the sources to justify would be a stub that simply covers the existence of the term - there's probably enough in the external links to say it's being used in protests but we don't even have a source that explains what it means, though we'd then be down to whether the coverage satisfies WP:GNG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (updated after re-reading the external links Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  Yes, the article may need to be renamed to e.g. Black police (Hong Kong), but the term is notable. [4] is translated as "anti-triad police" using Google Translate but actually literally means "oppose black police" in Chinese, at least in this context. The lack of a mention of the Chinese term in the article, coupled with WP:Systemic bias in favour of Anglophone topics, create the illusion of lack of notability. SSTflyer 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Some background information: the (derogatory) term "黑警" in use to describe Hong Kong police is at least partially related to allegations of cooperation between the Hong Kong Police Force and triad organizations in Hong Kong. See zh:香港警察與三合會關係 for some information. SSTflyer 05:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, that's making a lot of sense, thanks - it's great to have someone who can understand and explain the Chinese context. Yes, I'm coming round to thinking the term is indeed notable, and I like your suggestion of Black police (Hong Kong) as an alternative title. So yes, I'm thinking we should keep it and just remove the unsourced claims of the development and usage of the term, but could perhaps include some examples of its usage from the sources we have? I'd be interested to leave it a few more days and see what other people think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. I think there are definitely enough reliable sources to write an article about something, but the main subject might be something else. These sources use the phrase "haak ging" (black police) rather than discusses it, so they would be primary sources for an article on "black police". Instead, I can see how this article's content can be content forked with some parts of Hong Kong Police to form a new article about, say, "Criticism of Hong Kong Police". Deryck C. 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There have been some normal mentions of "evil cops" (黑警) in the press but that would not make "Hong Kong Black Police" as a notable topic. Also, the article seems to be a POV content fork which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2016 (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.