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 delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism in Hong Kong[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is largely held together by WP:SYNTH, as sources discuss the events themselves but not the greater topic of revisionism. For example, source 5 by The Atlantic only discusses the Hong Kong government's handling of the 2019 Yuen Long attack and the 2019 Hong Kong protests, but not any of the other examples in this article. Similarly, source 42 by Le Monde deals strictly with textbook and educational revisionism. The only article I could find connecting many of these events is source 9 by The Guardian, which discusses historical revisionism with regards to the 1967 Hong Kong riots, the removal insignia of colonial-era mailboxes, and history education.

As an alternative to synthesis, the information about individual events in the article could possibly be merged into their respective articles. Content in the "Textbook changes" section could be merged into Education in Hong Kong#Criticism or moved into its own article, as that is seemingly the only topic where revisionism is discussed in general. Yeeno (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, China, and Hong Kong. Yeeno (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article as it currently exists is a WP:SYNTHesis that does not actually deal with the topic at hand. Most of the article content is effectively a list of random examples. Article is also currently devoted to POV-pushing, which is unnaceptable no matter the morality involved. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear synthesis of sources; article consists of cherry-picked examples. As above, "unnaceptable no matter the morality involved". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2022 (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.