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. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of blacklisted keywords in China[edit]

List of blacklisted keywords in China (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)

Huge tangled mess of unsourced garbage. Too little of this is verified or verifiable. The article has been tagged for OR for ELEVEN YEARS with no improvement. List openly admits to being fluid, incomplete, and difficult to verify (" It is known that trying from different locations inside and outside China, on different search engines, and at different times can yield different results."), meaning there is no point in even having a list if so little of its content is even consistent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's anything salvageable (ie reliably sourced as being consistently blocked), it could be very selectively merged to Internet censorship in China? If not, we should delete, since the fluid nature of what is or is not being blacklisted at any given time makes this impossible to verify. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China participants who are active: Jimmy Xu (talk · contribs), Mandsford (talk · contribs), Dandv (talk · contribs), and Grue (talk · contribs).

  Pinging editors who have commented at Talk:List of blacklisted keywords in China who are active: Tamfang (talk · contribs), Rincewind42 (talk · contribs), Metal.lunchbox (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), Jsjsjs1111 (talk · contribs), and Brian0324 (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as original research. It says as much in the lead, that they were checked and compiled by an editor and no other source is given for most of them. I have seen mention of such banned words before but given their fluid nature and the lack of any official list so it’s always going to be inaccurate, so better not to try and make an article out of them. Instead they should be covered as part of Internet censorship in China.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the list is poorly sourced, the concept is notable, and there ARE good sources, some even linked there, like [1] for example. Collecting all such terms in one list seems valuable from educational/research/encyclopedic standpoint, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - while the topic is potentially notable, the list is a hopeless hodgepodge of unsourced and unverifiable WP:OR. WP:TNT. -Zanhe (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP and add refimprove. -- Dandv 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dandv (talk · contribs), the closing admin might give less weight to your AfD comment under WP:JUSTAVOTE. Would you explain your rationale for retention in more detail so that does not happen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the topic blacklisted keywords in China is itself notable, the list is meaningless if not backed up by reliable sources and maintained up to date. If we cut out all the unverified and outdated parts we would be left with a very small list. The core topic is already covered at Great Firewall and Internet censorship in China. Rather than trying, and failing, to maintain this list on Wikipedia, the Great Firewall article should instead have a external link at the bottom pointing to a site that does maintain details of blocked sites and keywords. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A rare case of a topic perfectly suited for an article but unfeasable for reasons beyond our control. Given the nature of banned words as being, well, banned, they are not allowed to be officially discussed, and any research of them must come from OR, whether from users here or another source. Even if someone meticulously documented some of these words, changes are too frequent and too hidden for the article to be anything resembling a maintainable list. Pinguinn 🐧 10:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because such a list would forever be incomplete and impossible to source without some form of original research, considering that the Chinese government updates its banned keywords on a whim. feminist (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the delete arguments above by Rincewind42, Pinguinn, Feminist, Zanhe, JohnBlackburne, and the nom are all cogent and on-target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 24 January 2018 (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.