Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amoy Street (Hong Kong)


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Amoy Street (Hong Kong)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

prod contested without improvement- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, no sources. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A source has been added. Will further expand the article. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked as sock
 * Delete unless shown to be notable, source added shows V but not N. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The source demonstrates its notability in the history of the Wan Chai area and the early City of Victoria. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If in case you don't already know, the source is a study conducted by the Antiquities and Monuments Office of the territorial government. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked as sock


 * Keep. "Marine Lot 40", on the seaward side of Queen's Road (the first road of Hong Kong), was among the first batch of lands that were auctioned off at the very beginning of the colony. Reference:  A History of Hong Kong, by G. B. Endacott. -- User:YauKwanKiu 07:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yau Kwan Yiu and AMO. 147.8.246.68 (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — 147.8.246.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and very likely a sock of the struck IP above


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist comment: The "keep" opinions do not address the issue of notability (i.e., substantial coverage in reliable sources).  Sandstein   07:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would rather see this article being kept for the moment. Although I was not convinced initially, there happens to be quite a bit of interesting information about this street available on the internet, and I hope that I can have a chance to include it into the article. If the article then still fails whatever criteria people in the discussion consider as important, then the expanded material could be merged somewhere else. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there enough material out there, can you just show two reliable source links that demonstrate notability? I understand writing it into the article could take time, but just show some links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Are you placing the burden of proof on those advocating the conservation of articles? If you do the search, you'll find them. I am currently busy 1) in real life and 2) improving other Hong Kong related articles. The recent mass-prodding and AfD'ing has generated a massive amount of work for those who actually care about improving the body of HK articles. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm placing the burden of proof on those advocating the conservation of the article. I'm busy too, the top links from find sources above (removing Hong Kong disambiguator) finds a lot of information about Singapore. If we're supposed to evaluate sources just show a few so we can evaluate the independent notability of the street. I'm hoping there is more than just what has been shown. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The concept of "Hope" is rather irrelevant here. If you read my initial comment, I was just asking to hold a potential deletion until content is added to the article and then potentially merged somewhere else. In the spirit of WP:TIND. I am not advocating for or against keeping it in the long term, just keep it for the moment. I will not take any of the "burden" here. Still, I "hope" to see you more applying your expertise at improving Hong Kong related articles. Cheers. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per Underwaterbuffalo. Should it be moved to Amoy Street, Hong Kong or Amoy Street, Wanchai instead? 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and very likely a sock of the struck IP above   (blocked for block evasion)
 * Keep. Cited source [1] in article "Steps in Amoy Street" is, despite commissioned by the government, an independent (because the study is by a different government department as the ones who built or maintains it) academic study of the street's features. The source suggested above by User:YauKwanKiu also suggests in-depth coverage for the early uses of the land. Deryck C. 12:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 2nd relist comment - Keep votes still don't demonstrate notability, though I am uncomfortable closing this as Delete at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is our policy that Wikipedia is a gazetteer and so all named geographical places should be retained as blue links. Also, it's notable as its history is documented here, for example.   Warden (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're trying to say there is a policy that if someone writes an article about their nondescript cul-de-sac we have to keep it? No, I don't think so. The proper place for this documented information is a local neighborhood, unless the street has some significant notability on its own. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * If one random person writes, no. But if two or more people of relevant academic standing do, as is the case for the two sources referred to in this discussion, then yes because that now becomes "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Deryck C. 19:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added a couple of refs to contribute to establishing notability. The scmp.com ref may be behind a paywall but the cited URL includes a scan of the article. I think it highly unlikely that there was not more coverage of this at the time. The article as it is begs the question "So, what happened?" Deleting it will preclude other editors from building its entry in the encyclopedia. Meeting WP:GNG has yet to be proved but that is not to say definitively that those refs are not available or likely to be included. is one further ref I found, albeit from a primary source. -- Trevj (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I've been thinking about this one for a while, and it seems to me that the sources added since nomination are just barely sufficient to meet WP:GNG. If someone has valid arguments why each of them isn't (or enough of them that there are no longer 2+ good ones), I'm content to be overruled. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.