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 redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong#2021 and merge content as appropriate. There is clear consensus here against standalone articles. Some users argue that the pages should be deleted outright as there isn't content that is independent of the Chinese government, but this is convincingly rebutted by the argument that summarizing government statistics is valuable when they are described correctly. This closure applies to all the nominated pages, but the closer tool isn't recognizing the other nominations: I'll implement the redirecting manually in a few minutes. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong (2021)[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)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2020). AfD reason there was "This is basically a repeat of the official statements from the Chinese government, not an article based on reliable, independent sources. I don't think a timeline for this region can be made based on such sources though, as the Chinese government tends to be rather controlling. But it is better not to have an article, than to function as the mouthpiece of a government." Fram (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Health and fitness, and China. Fram (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2022) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong (2022) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the daily case numbers into a table at more broad articles (ex. COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing, COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong...) per my rationale at the other AfD: "This article textual content is basically only the government reported case numbers, which can and should be reported in a table. The rest of the content (the videos) [where applicable] is just minor local news fluff which is not appropriate." Jumpytoo Talk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China or any other appropriate article. ParadaJulio (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, it seems important not to use Wikipedia to host content that is lacking independence, to put it kindly. CT55555(talk) 16:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons mentioned in the other timeline (no possibility of being a reliable and neutral article, fails NOSTATS). JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the daily case numbers into a table at more broad articles.
I agree with Jumpytoo's rationale: "This article textual content is basically only the government reported case numbers, which can and should be reported in a table. The rest of the content (the videos) [where applicable] is just minor local news fluff which is not appropriate." Cunard (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the broader articles, but substantially consolidate the numbers. For the most part, these are reports of a handful of new cases occurring on any given day. These numbers could be summarized as a timeline by month rather than having numerous lines for two or three cases being reported on this day or that. BD2412 T 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. The sources are not intellectually independent of the Chinese government; and as such the timelines fails WP:SIGCOV due to lack of independent sources. I am not seeing a benefit of a merge or redirect of this material, or a consolidation into a table in various articles due to sourcing problems.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree with the concerns that independent reliable sourcing does not support this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong (2020) includes sources that are not official statements from the Chinese government. This includes sources from 深圳新闻网, South China Morning Post, and 新京报. Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing (2021) includes the publications 中国新闻网, 央视, 新华社, 新京报网, Headline Daily, and Beijing Daily. There is content in the articles that is not solely cited to the gov.cn government websites. I support a redirect to allow editors to do a selective merge of the content to the parent articles. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, and retaining the history would allow this content and these sources to be consulted in considering a selective merge to the city and province articles. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2023 (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.