Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong
Most importantly, neither the earthquake nor the tsunami actually hit Hong Kong. Information about affected Hongkongers is already in Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and all information about relief is already in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Coffee 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. 23skidoo 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we are justifying an article by whether the place was hit by the earthquake or the tsunami, the articles on some other countries have to be deleted too. The rationale mentioned above failed to justify deletion. &mdash; Instantnood 05:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Conversely, articles would have to be created for many other countries/territories which are similarly effected, if not more. This article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami, and its singular existance skews the overall perspective of wikipedia too much in one small direction. In addition, some of its statements, such as "The catastrophe had a large psychological impact" appears exaggerated and overly emotive for an encyclopedia article.--Huaiwei 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Is " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " justified? &mdash; Instantnood 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, if it clearly has no room for further growth, and no similar articles are likely to be writtern for other entities since the full articles as mentioned by the nominator has served their purposes well and there is no current pressure to expand and split them.--Huaiwei 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. May I know if Norway was hit by the tremor or tsunami? And if yes, in what way it was hit? Thanks. (Here's a locator map of Norway.) &mdash; Instantnood 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh hell yes. The wave slamed into the Indian subcontinent, was uplifted into the air by the Himalayas, and smashed squaringly onto poor Norway. No one could explain why only this particular Scandinavian country was hit, and was indeed a freak chain of events certainly worthy of its own article. Did anything similar happen to HK?--Huaiwei 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling what'd happened. (So Hong Kong is the only country not directly hit to have such an article, since Norway was directly hit. Am I right?) &mdash; Instantnood 08:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not exactly correct. There is no country called "Hong Kong".--Huaiwei 09:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From your declaring that Norway was directly hit by the tremors and/or the tsunami, and therefore it deserves its own article, it's pretty obvious that you're twisting some facts to fulfill your targeting on Hong Kong-related topics on Wikipedia. &mdash; Instantnood 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you wish to use sarcasm/humour in otherwise serious discussions in wikipedia, then others are probably excused for expecting you to be able to accept it too. Once again, your paranoia with regards to others' targeting on certain topics has played a bigger part then it should in your editorial judgement, hence again raising questions on your claimed "fairness" and "maturity" in wikipedia . When I voted in this article, I did so on the simple reason that the earthquakes effect on HK is marginal at best compared to many other countries/territories without seeing a need to create a similar article. What is written for this article can easily be had in others. I did not notice the existance of an article for Norway until you pointed it out, which I found was an unfotunate occurance as I am afraid individuals (like yourself) would then take it as an excuse to create similar articles on every territory on earth no matter how small the effect actually is.--Huaiwei 10:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You were the only person to have mentioned fairness and maturity over there. &mdash; Instantnood 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing called synonyms. Your sense of denial is amazing, especially when I am clearly not the only one who specifically used the word "maturity", for eg.--Huaiwei 11:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad you know this word (a word that I mentioned frequently when saying country and sovereign state have to be distinguished). Could you please kindly tell what are the synonyms of maturity and fairness that I have used to claim myself to be? Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 11:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but are you aware what this page is? Do you not feel any sense of shame in displaying this kind of behavior for all to see? If you spent the time to engage in wiki-soap operas on explaining the significance of this article, or adding good content to any other wikipedia article, I would think all will be better off. I refuse to further engage in senseless discussions.--Huaiwei 11:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All these would not have happened if nobody boldly declared " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami ", and carried on by distorting facts by saying Norway was directly affected , then continued to put forward her/his very own point of view that only sovereign states are countries . May I know who's not aware of what? Who's staging "wiki-soap operas"? And who should be feeling shame for her/his behaviour? &mdash; Instantnood 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. We have (yet another) instance of instantnood refusing to accept any responsiblity whatsoever in any contentious issues concerning wikipedia. All of a sudden, I am now being portrayed as a "troublemaker" who caused the above exchange single-handedly. Suddenly, instantnood's role dissapears completely from view. Do I need to clear my name? Hardly, because I dont attempt to shun responsiblity the way instantnood does, almost like its an inborn habit of his. I am more then willing to say that I felt ashamed that I was participating in this kind of low-level exhange in a page like this. If I hadent felt this sense of shame or guilt, I wont be asking him if he felt the same way. I call this exchange a soap opera, because it reads embarrasingly like one. Who is blaming who for "staging a soap opera", whatever that means? I suppose he dosent seem to feel any remorse based on his ceaseless attempts to be a real pain anywhere in wikipedia, even in a page like this? --Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Huaiwei did not express his feeling of shame or guilt when he was asking me that question, and I have not said a single word on whether I have shunned any of my responsibility that resulted from my responses to what Huaiwei has said. &mdash; Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From this response, I could only conclude that either it confirms his chronic inability in accepting responsibility (he practically ignored what I just said and insisted he was still innocent), or he has some difficulty in comprehending the English language. I rest my case.--Huaiwei 14:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No. Gamaliel 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, the similar article for Norway is now nominated. &mdash; Instantnood 13:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. I remember this strategy before. When an article/category which instantnood wants to keep is nominated for deletion, he gets every other related article/category nominated too, in his bid to swing the votes around in his favour, even if other similar pages may be far more deserving to remain. This is becoming yet another example of instantnood's constant manipulation and gaming of wikipedia rules/mechanisms, and I do hope other wikipedians and admins may take note of this.--Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If an article or a category should be deleted, the same reasons would very likely be applicable to other similar articles or categories. How much similarities do the articles share, and whether such similarities merit the same or similar action, are to be decided by the community. Each wikipedian can make her/his own decision, don't think votes can be swung or manipulated. &mdash; Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment IMHO that nomination is very close to violating WP:POINT, wether or not other nations have seperate articles should have no impact on wether or not this article about Hong Kong should be kept. I'm actualy a little supriced Germany or Sweden (and others) doesn't have seperate articles, they lost a lot of people too and probably raised simmilar debate and critisism as we had in Norway about how to handle major disasters involving our citizens abroad. The lack of or exsistence off other articles should have no bearing on wether or not this should be kept or deleted. If it contains information beyond what is in other articles it shouold be kept, otherwise it should be deleted, simple as that. Deleting it just because Hong Kong was not directly hit is just as bad a reason as keeping it just because Norway have a simmilar article. --Sherool 14:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Length of an article may or may not be relevant in deciding whether an article should be deleted. If the two articles share substantial similarities, and if the arguments mentioned in this page are readily applicable other similar articles, it would be better to assess them together. &mdash; Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Article length is an often-used criterion in deciding whether an article is deleted or not, and it is a relevant criterion in this instance, since its length does not justify its existance when its information could fit into other articles easily.--Huaiwei 14:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, centralizes information that is otherwise buried in other articles. No useful redirect because the information is in more than one place. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sub-trivial subset of larger, more important article. I was in Hong Kong (briefly) a week after the tsunami, and the biggest issue in the local paper seemed to be a) priority treatment of VIPs by Hong Kong authorities; and b) whether Jet Li was safe. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd be interested to know which papers you read. :-P Were all newspapers, TV and radio news, etc., talking only about VIPs and Jet Li?  &mdash; Instantnood 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: what Calton said could also be partly observed elsewhere. The only time HK was mentioned in the Singaporean media was whether some HK celebrities were alive for being caught in that region, in stark contrast to much more pressing and elaborate discussions related to other countries/territories.--Huaiwei 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Norway, as well as countries like Somalia, Réunion, Burma were rarely mentioned in Hong Kong during that period, comparing to Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. &mdash; Instantnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional information: Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee before the nomination for deletion (see edit history ). &mdash; Instantnood 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional observation: Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The rest of the old article includes information not fit for a wikipedia article. "Hong Kong Relief Information" and "How to donate" are examples of what wikipedia is not.--Huaiwei 15:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Donations information was considered necessary at that time, and in fact there was an article titled donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, until voted to be changed as a redirect in May. For other information, they should not be merged into articles until there's a clear consensus here to do so. &mdash; Instantnood 16:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I may quote from User:Kingturtle's comment in :
 * this article violates all sorts of wikipedia standards, but it was created to assist in donation efforts. in its creation, this article was meant to be temporary - and now it is time to delete it. although relief fund-raising continues, it has fallen off, and wikipedia *must* get rid of this article which violates all kinds of policies and standards.
 * The subsequent voting process was overwelmingly in his favour. That vote took place May, and it is a wonder why this page continues to display information considered temporary and a rare exception for humanitary purposes. user:TheCoffee's removal of this content is a step in the right direction, and lends no weight to user:Instantnood's claims that his deletions are disputable and hence should be restored in this article. On the contrary, it all the more highlights the fact that this article has nothing much to discuss beyond what is left behind.--Huaiwei 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no objection that donations information on this article should be removed. Nevertheless, other information from this article should not be merged to other articles until there's a clear consensus here. &mdash; Instantnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you remove those two sections, what is left remaining is basically what you see there now. Did he remove any important information? Please feel free to highlight them here.--Huaiwei 16:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My comment was made based on your "additional observation": " Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake " . &mdash; Instantnood 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And my comment was based on your "Additional observation": "Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee before the nomination for deletion" . So what are you trying to say now?--Huaiwei 17:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Apart from the information on how and where to donate, the figures showing the trend of amount of money collected were removed. &mdash; Instantnood 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this the only information you would consider important enough for this page to be kept?--Huaiwei 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article has now been reorganised and expanded. &mdash; Instantnood 19:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment on expanded article: The only significant expansion we can see in this article is the "Responses of the government and other organisations" section, which quite unfortunately is simply non-relevant to this article which talks about the effect it has on HK. The only other non-dorectly affected country article, Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Norway makes no mention on relief efforts at all, as all these should be in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. As for the section on Impact, which should be the gist of the article, it again suffers from exagerated comments, not surprising since we have members here fighting to keep it around and make it appear "significant" enough. The reduction in travel to the region affects the entire global tourism industry, and there is nothing notably different in this text. The humanitarian response and show of emotional care is to be expected in any civilised society. Anyhow, saying "Thai and Indonesian culture is highly visible in Hong Kong" is itself debatable, besides the question of just what kind of and the extend of its impact it can have on HK itself. To sum up...what has actually been contributed to the article besides the obvious?--Huaiwei 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Agree the article needs further improvement. In fact some of your comments are also applicable to the Norway counterpart. Response are results of the effect. The Norway article talks about impact too. &mdash; Instantnood 22:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Humanitarian efforts as a result of the "effect", if any, will have to directly addressed to the reader, or else no one is going to make this assumption. Does the degree of "effect" have on the amount of $$$ donated internationally? Please illustrate. The Norway article talks about impact, and rightfully yes it should, because this is mainly what an effect is all about. It does not, however, devote a sizeable chunk of its text on humanitarian responses thou, and there is no reason for it to.--Huaiwei 23:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This article talks about impact too. &mdash; Instantnood 00:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you actually read what I wrote above, I made quite alot of commends on it. You sound like I want the entire section deleted for being irrelevant, when I was saying it was far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article.--Huaiwei 00:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ummm.. but you failed to justify why Norway is not far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article. &mdash; Instantnood 00:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Am I compelled to comment on another article in the first place, and how should that be relevant in this discussion? Clearly, it is not just me who felt the need to delete one and keep the other. Tells you alot on just how irrelevant the two articles are.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So far nobody has shown why the reasons to keep that article are not applicable to this one, and the reasons to delete this article not applicable to that one. &mdash; Instantnood 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Let the community decide, and learn to accept community concensus.--Huaiwei 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 沖洗它喜歡從我的靶垛出來的船尾 or, er, delete SchmuckyTheCat 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. GhePeU 10:12, 9 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.