Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Come on james


 * 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. North America1000 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Come on james

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Internet meme, only local (Hong Kong) coverage. sst✈discuss 09:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just because it is in Hong Kong does not mean it is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because it is in Hong Kong does not mean it is automatically notable either. sst✈discuss 08:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I suggested it was. However, you suggested it received coverage in Hong Kong only which was apparently a grounds for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "non-notable" as in failing GNG. sst✈discuss 09:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "only local (Hong Kong) coverage" AusLondonder (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Local notability is still notability. However, some of the sources are of dubious quality (forum entries) so some pruning of the article will be needed. Deryck C. 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The page is unnecessary to be deleted. Although it is not notable worldwide yet, its significance demonstrated on YouTube and in the city( it is now a very popular slang among Hong Kongers) prove that the article certainly worth existing.

Also, other pages related to culture or phenomenon only yet viral in Hong Kong are kept as well, such as the Bus Uncle page, the Kong Boys and Kong Girls, Hong Kong Cyclothon, Swimming shed and so on. The Come On, James article should be treated the same way. Besides, local notability is still notability.

And one of the main functions of Wikipedia is to get new knowledge, regardless of its popularity, known internationally. Or else, Wiki won't feature articles and news on its front page to spread the the knowledge to its readers. And the other name of Wiki is literally the Free Encyclopedia. A REAL encyclopedia contains every kind of knowledge, has no boundaries and does not cut out any kind of new knowledge that is not "notable" internationally yet. The Wikipedia should be the same.

Most importantly, the article is being testified to be included in the WikiProject Hong Kong. If it's not for the representation of social, cultural phenomenon of the city from the article, it would not have been considered. Hence, there's genuinely no need for deletion of the article.

Terenceterenceterence1402 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (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.