Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design


 * 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.

After the article has been on AFD for over a month, there is not a clear consensus. I am not relisting it again; there is clearly no consensus and the article will be kept. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No RS to support this, not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-orelated deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The only coverage I see is passing mention when the head of the group is quoted. I see no significant coverage of the group itself in independent, reliable sources.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Article creator here. Since the article was listed for deletion I have added a couple references from credible third-party sources and will continue to do so. The text is NPOV. On the subject of notability I don't think there's any shortage of mention of the group online: there are plenty of LegCo documents demonstrating the involvement of the group in community affairs, especially if you search in both Chinese and English, and other event notices published by universities, other professional groups, etc. Additionally there are many other professional organizations in Hong Kong on Wikipedia with similar levels of notability, and I think they belong. Why is the Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong acceptable but HKIUD is not? That group is of a similar age and judging by their website may be less active. Citobun (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At first glance, the other article you mention seems much better referenced than this one. But we are debating the deletion of this article, not that one. Just because we have adequately referenced articles about notable Hong Kong organizations does not mean that we should keep a poorly referenced article about this particular group. So, please point to the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources discussing this specific topic. Thank you.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABLE states that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." User:Tyros1972 has attempted to have the page deleted twice in less than two days since I created the article. This gives me very little time to beef up the article and add reliable sources as I now know is required, and deletion is hardly being used as a "last resort" in this case where the notability is clearly subject to debate. "Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong" and other similar pages demonstrate that. They are very similar precedent cases.


 * The rationale given for both the deletion attempts is shaky. When it was first listed for speedy deletion it was under the promotional content criterion -- but the article was totally NPOV and the speedy deletion request was delisted. Now the reasoning is that there are "no RS" to demonstrate notability -- not true. It is still poorly sourced because I've been given no time to work on it. Deletion at this time would be inappropriate and even listing it here runs contrary to the guidelines at NOTABLE. Citobun (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a one week process starting on June 19, so you do have time. If you add a few high quality independent sources, I will change my recommendation from "delete" to "keep".  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Article creator again. I have spent some time today beefing up the article and adding some more third-party reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * * Comment - You query why Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong is acceptable for an article and this one is not. That is not the point. It, too, could end up at AfD, for all you know, but, applying your own argument, one could just as well ask why HKIUD should have an article when only one of the six similar bodies given prominence in your fifth source viz. Hong Kong Institute of Architects has a Wiki article, apart from this one, which is being discussed here. I note from the HKIUD website that it has only around 100 members. In any case, this is a fairly young organisation which has only been around for just over two years. I think, since you are connected with this institute, WP:COI is also an issue here..--Zananiri (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking through the article and alerting me to WP:COI. Yes, I should have made it clear much earlier that as a student of urban design in Hong Kong I have been a student member of the institute for a couple months. My motivation to create the article came before I joined, however, when I first Googled the institute and found no Wiki page. After skimming WP:COI, I will refrain from editing the HKIUD page, though I also want to add that I have not received any sort of compensation, benefits, nor do I know anyone at the institute particularly well. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve - No case to answer. The nominator's reasons are just too thin. The article simply needs improvement, not deletion. STSC (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I searched the Chinese name "香港城市設計學會" on Google, I got 116 actual hits. That is substantial. STSC (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I only replied to the question if there's substantial coverage. The article still needs improvement on citation. STSC (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Little to add really, so not much to improve either, as this is a very young institute - in its infancy actually - with around 100 members and without a proven track record. At present it  lacks notability. However, it is understandable that students and others following the subject may find it interesting and think it warrants a stand-alone Wiki  article. In fact, the creator of this article has  conceded this very point here. A better solution might be be to list all the institutes in the fifth source in one article, mentioning their respective salient features. The fifth source is, in any case,  a press release by them about themselves  and not an independent, third party assessment of the institutes or HKIUD, so it is a primary source.
 * The number of Google hits, substantial or not, in whatever language they are present, does not really equate to sources establishing the importance or notability of HKIUD. Google hits in this context may actually mean nothing. I could find hits entering my own name. Does that make me notable or worthy of a Wiki article? I think not.  Quantity and quality are separate issues, particularly when it comes to Google hits. My favourite coffee and wine suppliers have umpteen Google hits. So what?  However, I think, we should be clearer about the notability of  HKIUD in a couple of years' time. Let it mature  and prove itself  to be a worthy contender for a stand-alone Wiki article. Until then, just one article for all the institutes mentioned in the fifth source may be the answer.  After all, the said institutes also issued the press release, cited in that source, collectively - one statement for all of them.--Zananiri (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a young institute with about 100 members can be notable and is not a valid reason for deletion of the article. Notability is established by multiple secondary sources. STSC (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not the reason I gave for deletion. Notability has just not been established per WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is in your comment above, if it is not the reason then how and why the article fails the WP:GNG? STSC (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence following that comment clearly states that this company has no track record. And I did make other comments as well. I note that you have edited the article since my last comment here, but you have not mentioned anywhere that this is a limited company, as its website states from which I quote verbatim:
 * "articles and bye-law 'The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design is a company limited by guarantee which was incorporated under the Companies Ordinance in 2010. The Institute is governed by a memorandum and by articles of association. Together with a set of bye-laws now approved at the EGM held on 5th May 2011 these instruments cover, amongst other things, the classes and rights of and requirements of entry to membership of the Institute, the composition and powers of the council to manage the Institute and the conduct of general meetings.'"
 * The above quote is taken from: http://www.hkiud.org/en/about-us/articles-and-bye-law


 * Its full name is:  The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design Limited. The lead in the article should have mentioned that it is a limited company, when saying  it is a professional body for urban designers in Hong Kong. It appears it is just another limited company, whatever it does. The bit about it being supported (no citation, though) by the government, when it was established, was another opportunity to mention its limited company status. It doesn't really matter who was invited to cut the ribbon at the company's inauguration and who was present. That is incidental.
 * I still think the article should be deleted. Parts of it also look like blatant promotion to me. I also note that the company's entries at the social media website linkedin are promotional, too, being a copy of what the company's website says about itself  viz. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Hong-Kong-Institute-Urban-Design-4708154/about - Enough said. I will leave it at that.--Zananiri (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any organization can be set up legally as a limited company. So, you want to delete the article because of that? STSC (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I would like it to be deleted, because I believe this company still fails WP:GNG. Even after all your edits. The sources don't vouch for its notabiliy, not the English ones at any rate and I doubt that the Chinese ones are any different, as the company's languages are English and Chinese. Additionally, the lead is, in my view, misleading, overhyped and tendentious. It should state unambiguously that UKIUD is a private limited company and membership entails  an annual subscription viz.http://www.hkiud.org/en/membership/fee-a-payment
 * The bit about the company having received government support is ambiguous as well. There is nothing unusual about new companies inviting government officials or ministers to attend the inauguration ceremony. The guest of honour at such vents is often a high-ranking government servant, particularly in Asian countries. Good publicity. That does not mean active government support or say anything about the notability of the company, but the lead certainly gives me the impression that this is what  the reader is expected to surmise! This company merely provides the facilities for fee-paying members to get together, to discuss matters that interest them, make proposals pertaining to their interests and organise events they are interested in. Think of a wine tasting club, society or institute where like-minded members pay an annual fee, attend tastings, pass judgement on wines they taste and write articles about such wines. Every now and then, they award points to wines they taste, after which the organisation is quoted by wine merchants to sell some particular vintage. Good for the organisation and good for the wine merchants. Inviting distinguished guests to their tastings gives the organisation even more publicity, like the events HKIUD organises. Would the wine organisation pass WP:GNG? I doubt it. I think the same applies to HKIUD. Zananiri (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * HKIUD is not a business entity as you are playing it out to be, and I don't know any professional association without annual dues. As you quoted from the website, it's a company limited by guarantee, which in Hong Kong means a "company limited by guarantee [which is] set up for purpose of advancement of education, religion, relief of poverty, trust and foundation, etc. Most Institutes formed by this structure are not for profit-marking but they may not be charitable" source. This is not an applicable basis for making a claim of promotional material. The institute is not for profit and many other similar professional associations in HK have the same legal setup. Citobun (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. the gnews hits are very limited and not indepth. number of members is irrelevant to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment - There are multiple secondary sources published on the net (mostly in Chinese -  Google and some in English) that support the notability of the subject. I have improved the article and it's improvement should continue through regular editing. STSC (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - User STSC is right, weak reasoning for deletion. Already improvements made by user STSC to show further notability. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment - After having seen the revision and the new sources, I have come to the same conclusion again i.e. HKIUD does not pass WP:GNG The new sources provided do not vouch for the notability of this institute.
 * The lead is still misleading, about government support (no citation) and who attended the opening ceremny. In fact, the lead dwells too much on this.


 * The third source (We Own The City) points to an event organised by the Faculty of Architecture, University of Hong Kong, which HKIUD, among others, supported. It was the initiative of the university.


 * The fifth source relates to a government initiative in which everyone (public consultation), was invited to submit their views. HKIUD may have taken part but so did many others.


 * I have previously commented on the sixth source (fifth before revision) and stand by my observations, even if HKIUD is a non-profit establishment.


 * The seventh source relates to HKIUD entering a competition. Entering a competition relating to urban design is one thing, winning it is another.


 * The ninth source quotes someone who attended an event in Hong Kong organised by the HKIUD. After saying he enjoyed being there, he concludes: "Hopefully they will be able to progress from a ‘professional’ body to become a wider influence on place and culture."  This is, in essence, what I have been saying all along. HKIUD does not yet have a notable track record. Give it time to mature and the chance to become hopefully a notable body eventually. At present, it does not seem to pass the notability test for a stand-alone Wiki article, which this participant at the HKIUD event, in my opinion, confirms in diplomatic language.--Zananiri (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (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.