Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping  11:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. hardly any third party coverage. before someone says "there should be non English sources" note that English is an official language of Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see why non-English sources should not be searched for, since even though HK is legally also English, it is fairly Cantonese in character, meaning that it may not appear in English. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * provide significant Chinese sources then and I will happily withdraw my nomination. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose A simple Google search for the phrase "Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society" obtained 2920 hits - most in English. The article is a perfectly acceptable stub about a notable subject - According to WP:CLUB it does not fail WP:ORG. Roger (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS should be avoided. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK so maybe WP:GOOGLEHITS are not a valid argument. But still a national organisation whch is an afilliate of a global organisation is inherently notable, notwithstanding the absence of non-specialist media attention. This is in line with a decision of the Amateur Radio Wikiproject. I stand by my opposition vote. Roger (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG absolutely and directly rejects any and all claims of "inherent notability" for any kind of organization, national or not. No sources = no article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose HARTS is notable simply as a member of the IARU. IARU member societies are the primary organizational/representative bodies for their respective countries in amateur radio matters (frequency allocation, emergency response agreements, etc.). Note that even countries with relatively large populations of radio amateurs (e.g. the U.S. and Japan) register only one representative member society with the IARU. /ninly(talk) 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:CLUB "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area". LibStar (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the paragraph you cite is about local chapters, not national chapters. Your getting nonserious. PanchoS (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * please provide evidence of significant coverage and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that an radio communications organization, that predates the Empire of Japan invaded Hong Kong in 1941, Might just have WP:N somewhere in its history. As there is no deadline to the wiki, actual cites may not currently be possible online, (the people that were there, are a generation or 2 older than the Internet and thus not as savvy as others at getting stuff online), however I feel Notability is probable. Besides... AFD is not cleanup, we only discuss a Articles probable Notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated in that process, THIS was exactly my fear, that somewhere down the road all the stubs would be put for deletion, even as the decision was being made then, to move to the current format. None of the stubs have reference to that decision, so we can be assured that !Keepers in that decision will miss a few as they pass through AFD. Next, when people try to rebuild them, guess what, Speedy ... recreation of previously deleted material :/ Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your fear, Exit2DOS2000, was justified, because of interpretations, as we see here, of the General notability guideline as "absolutely and directly" rejecting these stubs, which sets it up as more than a guideline, as if it were an overarching policy, when the fundamental policies are [[WP:V and WP:IAR. This particular article may survive, but in the absence of a clear consensus on how to structure IARU information, disruption over this will continue. I'm gently escalating so that we don't have to see a hundred AfDs, but a sustainable consensus, and I thank LibStar for participating in that.
 * In fact, the articles in question are not necessarily independent, they are connected stubs, and they should clearly be presented as subsidiary, the membership of the national society in the IARU should be featured in the lede, the articles are so categorized, and we should make them uniform in that respect, if they are kept. I still propose keeping them all, and, as well, creating stubs for the few national societies that don't currently have them, and continuing, through this, to invite additional material from independent reliable sources. --Abd (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - nearly 8000 hits in native script for an amateur society is notable. Benjwong (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS should be avoided. Gnews is a better indicator of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I get 139 non-duplicate GHits in Chinese, of which none consist of non-trivial coverage from reliable third-party publications. cab (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfD is absolutely the wrong approach here, this AfD, one of many currently filed, is bypassing what should be decision process at parent articles; national members of notable international societies are ipso facto notable, and the decision of whether or not to cover them at the national article or with a List article or with stubs is a decision best made coherently in a single place rather than in a long series of AfDs. Or if AfD is going to be used, it should be a single AfD on the overall set. An AfD can make decisions individually, but the exact same arguments should not have to be repeated over and over. The issue here is whether or not an individual national affiliate of a notable international organization can have a stub even if there is little or no independent source found -- other than the publications of the international society or others derived from it -- discussing the specific national member. So arguing the merits of each individual society is useless unless that overall question is first answered. Fragmenting process like this results in a choppy and difficult to maintain project. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2010 (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.