Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Kids phenomenon


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong Kids phenomenon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable in terms of WP:NEO, WP:NPOV, and WP:ROC Yannaynay (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. WP:NEO doesn't support deletion in this case because the phrase is clearly used and discussed in most of the cited sources. WP:NPOV are WP:ROC are irrelevant to article deletion, although we can improve the article if you can substantiate how the current article content is biased or irrelevant. Deryck C. 11:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deryck Chan, I suppose what I meant was that there are really only two reliable citations in english in the article that mention "Kong Kids" or "Hong Kong Kids". I'm not sure this is an actual phenomenon. Also, it seems to me to be a very vaguely-defined term. Is it a medical condition, a sociological phenomenon, or a derogatory term? If it is a real phenomenon, I apologise for tagging it, and hope that the article can be improved. Yannaynay (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea I understand that. "Kong Hai" is primarily a Chinese-language phrase so the English sources are mainly there to establish the prevalent English translation. In response to your question, it's certainly not a medical condition. I'd say it's something between a sociological phenomenon and a d derogatory term. Deryck C. 22:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, my view is for keep. The article is scruffy, but for a conceptual article such as this, a scruffy article is better than no article. Deryck C. 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have trouble finding reliable English sources, as the citations I see (Scholar, GBooks) are to the generic use of the term "children from Hong Kong". The concept may be notable (like, let's say, Hikikomori), but this really need a comment from someone who can review Chinese language sources. Was there any academic paper published that uses this term in this context? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Google Scholar suggested the following papers: HKUNCTU --Deryck C. 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Thanks, I'll AGF them since they are in Chinese, and since both of them do mention "港孩". For that reason I feel I can now vote wk. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This phenomenon has been significantly covered in Chinese language newspaper sources, mentioned or researched into in several survey reports  , discussed in RTHK (the public broadcaster of Hong Kong) , and is the subject of several books written by different authors   . Thus, it should be notable enough to warrant its own article. Also note that non-English sources are generally accepted on the English wikipedia, so long they are reliable. --Dps04 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe the lack of English sources led to the good faith nomination, but this seems to be well covered in Chinese sources and is clearly notable. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  14:19, 1 June 2016 (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.