Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employers' Federation of 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Employers' Federation of Hong Kong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of Notability. Sources are either closely related (see the reference), or are press releases, and or are passing mentions. No independent significant coverage from multiple sources. Fails GNG and CORPDEPTH. I would request speedy delete but the article does assert significance of this organization, and speedy delete would be declined. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Widespread significant coverage, as might be expected for any extant national organization founded in 1947, especially given the fact this organsiation is part of the electoral college for the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. Sources include, , , , , , , . Pontificalibus 11:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pontaficalibus. Mccapra (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article needs a lot of work, but its clear the organisation is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from the nominator. Three of the sources above show passing mention of this organization, nothing more, at most a couple of disparate paragraphs in a whole book. The second source seems to indicate this organization is covered in part of a chapter, but there is no way to know how much. This organization garners about 112 electors.  There 29 or 30 such organizations called "sub sectors" that have varying amount of electors from 24 to 500 to thousands of registered electors (see pages 117 to 124 on this link).
 * Then there is the general population who also vote as delineated in Hong Kong's universal suffrage laws. So 112 electors is not a significant amount. Also, four of the above sources do not show coverage of this organization, , , . The last source mentioned here picks up on key words in the phrase and isn't showing this organization. So there doesn't seem to be widespread significant coverage. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you are using Google to search the sources correctly. For example you said it wasn't covered here, but if you search with quotes: .Pontificalibus 17:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your original link was this: . In any case, what you just posted: [, shows there is coverage in one part of chapter, and that's it. There's no way to know how much. But it is still not much coverage. More is needed to demonstrate significant independent coverage. Even in the link I posted, it is one paragraph among many in an appendix of a whole book. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "part of a chapter" is obviously "more than a trivial mention" which is the requirement of WP:SIGCOV. In any case there is an abundance of sources without even touching Chinese language publications.Pontificalibus 13:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, all the coverage I've seen is not significant in depth coverage of the topic and nothing new has been added to change this observation. It's all the same sources. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Also Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:NOTPROMOTION. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Essentially, observable coverage consists of a couple of paragraphs in entire books in the sources where coverage can be seen. With the other sources that show only the name of this organization is in the book (and that's it), it can be assumed that these are also a couple of paragraphs. And these books contain a bunch of chapters with many sections in each chapter, with each section covering a different topic. So, if there is an aggregate of 110 or more sections then what I'm seeing is this topic has a couple of paragraphs that might comprise one section. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs in multiple books is fine. SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention - we just need enough details to write an article per WP:WHYN. The size of each publication and the relative proportion of the coverage are irrelevant.--Pontificalibus 05:00, 5 September 2019 (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.