Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Morris


 * 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   no consensus. Perfectly reasonable nomination, but the arguments in favor of the article are enough that I don't see a consensus to delete. Improved sourcing still is desireable, of course. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong Morris

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Will all due respect to the work put in by the article's creater and quasi-sole contributor, there is nothing here in this undersourced article, or in websearches for 'Hong Kong Morris' which indicates that this organisation is in any way notable. Most of the information is, by definition, only known to individuals in the club, and is largely unverifiable to reliable third party sources Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Offhand, and without prejudice to further thoughts I may have, there are at least two reasons why this morris side is notable: (1) it continues to flourish as a notable example of the resilience of Western cultural activity in postcolonial Hong Kong; and (2) in the 1980s it may well have been the largest morris side in the world.


 * The second point will need verification, but I'm pretty sure it's true.


 * What have people got against the side, anyway? There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles on morris sides, none of which are as notable as Hong Kong Morris, in my humble view.


 * Djwilms (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there's plenty of Western cultural activity in Hong Kong after 1997; no scholars or journalists appear to regard this group as a notable example of such activity. From a Google search, there do not appear to be any non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources about this group; the entire article has been written based on someone's personal knowledge of the group, or their own website. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of writing. cab (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to incubating/userfying the article. There may be sources (as discussed below), but the article as it stands needs a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's standards --- which should be done by someone who has access to the sources and is NOT a member of the group. cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed the point on size. Most UK and US Morris sides are lucky to get between 10 and 20 members.  At its peak, in 1986, the Hong Kong Morris had more than 50 active members.  I'm pretty sure no Cotswold side elsewhere in the world can beat that record, and the fact that the side was 'provincial', i.e. located in a British colony with no other sides nearby, makes its numbers all the more notable.


 * Another point, which I feel needs wider discussion, is that it is absurd to try to enforce the 'notability' criteria. This pass has been sold long ago, whether we like it or not.  There are any number of articles on Wikipedia on topics that, to the fair-minded reader, are not notable in any way.  Wikipedia, for better or worse, has become a repository of quaint and curious information (I have improved my own education by reading the articles on some of the western world's more obscure sexual practices, for example), and we can't put back the clock.


 * I am perfectly happy to ground the Hong Kong Morris's notability on its size, if you don't accept that its survival after 1997 is in itself notable. Though some people seem to think it is, judging by the reference in the second paragraph of this website:.


 * Djwilms (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable. Djwilms, despite what you've said about HK Morris, there is a notability criteria that we need to apply to articles.  Please read Notability.  And you're absolutely right, there are a number of articles on WP that cover topics that are not notable.  That only means they should be nominated for deletion, their existence does not justify the creation of articles on other non-notable topics.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read the Notability criteria carefully, and it seems to me that this article is eminently justifiable on the grounds that in 1986 the team was the largest Cotswold morris side in the world, despite being based in a provincial location like Hong Kong. If that's not notable, what is?  Neither you nor the previous contributor have addressed this point at all.


 * Djwilms (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is demonstrated by in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, not by size or location or Wikipedia having other articles on similar topics. Please see WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, cab (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm trying to dig out an influential 1984 publication by the Morris Ring, called, I think, simply The Morris Dance, that showcased around ten of the world's leading morris sides, with articles and photographs.  Hong Kong Morris was one of them, and I remember that the article title was 'Even in Hong Kong ...'  A quotation from that will, I think, amply demonstrate the team's notability.  I've got it at home somewhere, and will get back to you in a day or so.


 * Djwilms (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Once deleted, a reproduction is tiresome and then energy put behind, such a lengthy article gets wasted. I found it interesting, and making wiki interesting, is what we all do. We have to measure an article with all the given rules, if they are contentious and leads to further debates. This article is good information, and will never invite any mutiples opinions. Keep it as long as it is not harmful. CosmasIndi (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — CosmasIndi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Extremely disappointing to see such blatant meatpuppetry in a debate for an article that was already riddled with conflict-of-interest issues. cab (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not going to press this issue because it doesn't make too much difference. Djwilms' explanation is below. cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what 'meatpuppetry' (what a ridiculous term!) is, but I can assure you that I have not attempted to mobilise my Wikipedia fan club, and that I have no idea who CosmasIndi is. I am, of course, grateful for his (or her) support, and am also glad that he/she found the article interesting.  I aim to please.


 * As I mentioned earlier, I am trying to locate documentation which will amply demonstrate the notability of the Hong Kong Morris. I intend to win this absurd argument on the merits of my case, and will get back to this page shortly.


 * Djwilms (talk)


 * Something very strange is going on when a new contributor shows up on a week-old AfD debate directly after leaving a comment on the talk page of the article's main author. Regardless, administrators generally ignore "keep" arguments based on reasons like "the article doesn't hurt anyone" or "it's interesting" anyway, regardless of who they're coming from.


 * More importantly --- the source you mention I assume is the newsletter mentioned here . Well, are there any other sources? WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ... Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." Regards, cab (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw CosmasIndi's comment on my talk page only after I wrote to you. He appears to be an Indian Christian who has recently involved himself in a discussion, in which I am heavily involved, on the sources for the article Ahatallah.  I assume that he found this page (since Morris dancing is probably outside his normal areas of interest) by looking at my recent edits.  I did not ask him to intervene on my behalf and am surprised (though flattered) that he did so on his own initiative.  Your accusations of meatpuppetry are quite unwarranted.


 * The source you have identified is, I think, the regular newsletter. The publication I am looking for was a one-off booklet, The Morris Tradition, published in 1984.  I know I have it at home, and as tomorrow is a public holiday in Hong Kong I will try to unearth it then.  There were also several articles (often with accompanying photographs) on the Hong Kong Morris in the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Standard in the 1980s and 1990s, but I don't know whether it's possible to retrieve the text of these articles.


 * Djwilms (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Standard's online archives go back to 1994; the SCMP's to 1993. HKU has archives going farther back, but you have to have an HKU library login (faculty, staff, student, or friend of the library). You would find people are more willing to assume good faith if you weren't writing an article about a group of which you're a member ... cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep if only on the basis of one voter and the main author of the article being accused of collusion and meatpuppetry (the delete vote lost the argument when that happened). Having said that, I enjoy looking at the article again in a couple of weeks to some SCMP etc. references, and if at all possible, some actual Chinese language newspapers - even as presumably a guailo activity pre-1997 it would be surprising if the performance on the container and the one for Patton did not get into 蘋果日報? Djwilms you might also want to add a short line about how (apparently) the mainland name is 莫里斯舞 (New Oxford English-Chinese Dictionary, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2007), and how the British Council considers this form of dancing worth promoting as UK culture source for you here. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support and the elegant amendments to 'Invention of Traditions', and thanks also for that information on Chinese names for morris: most interesting. In fact, at one point we used to use 莫里斯舞 in our name, though Ancient English Dance Platoon eventually won out because 'Moh lei si', a direct transliteration of 'morris', meant nothing to Hong Kong Chinese audiences.  When we toured in Taiwan in 1989 there was some debate among our interpreters on what to call my concertina, an instrument that had not yet featured on Chinese radar.  Accordians and melodeons are 'hand-wind pianos' (shoufengqin), and my concertina was duly christened a 'six-corner piano' (liujiaoqin).  I subsequently became the 'six-sided windbag' to most of the side's members.


 * I would love to find good sources for this article (look at all my other articles, they are all punctiliously sourced), and now that I have learned that I can access SCMP and HKS articles back to the early 90s (for a price, no doubt), I hope I can begin providing the documentation that we would all like to see.


 * Djwilms (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome, though I was sorely tempted to delete out the Manila bells bit, as being a bit too unconstipated for Wikipedia. And yes as a happy coincidence of this deletion discussion I did browse some of your examplarily sourced articles on Mar Thoma etc. I think we all agree that Newspaper articles are perfectly reasonable sources for "local interest" articles like this; for example CaliforniaAliBaba's excellent Tianweiban article is built on the regulation 3 newspaper sources. If the access isn't pay-per-look then I wonder if you'd consider using the access to decent sources to write a new more general article e.g. Gweilo subculture in the category:Hong Kong culture, linking onwards to Hong Kong Morris, Hong Kong Sevens, Lan Kwai Fong, Hash House Harriers, etc.etc., since Gweilo doesn't contain anything of interest, and from an anthropological point of view the Mid-Levels Gweilo must be/have been one of the "notable" Hill Tribes of Asia. Cheers In ictu oculi (and btw - I added 六角琴 to en.wiktionary as "English concertina". Odd that Taiwanese in 1989 should not have know an instrument reasonably well known in mainland China today). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there must be an official Chinese term for concertina (oddly enough, I've never bothered to look it up; perhaps I should). Liujiaoqin was coined by our Taiwanese interpreter on the spot because he wanted to talk about our instruments, (melodeons, concertinas, accordians) and shoufengqin was the only term he knew in Chinese.  None of us could help him out, so that's what he came up with.


 * Gweilo subculture, eh? ... You inspire me! But do you think it's a sufficiently notable topic for Wikipedia?


 * I think I need to fiddle with the reference to Blow the Man Down. Phil's song was not that one, but a different one, with a chorus that went something like this (I'm quoting from memory, not having heard the song for over a quarter of a century):


 * Farewell Mister Rooney, Ta Ta Mister Lynch,
 * Come Regan give my kind regards to Jim and Andy Clinch,
 * Farewell [somebody else Irish], Let's tell the neighbours round,
 * I'm off to be a Chinaman, for Hong Kong I'm bound.


 * The most memorable line in the song was 'I'll wear my hair in a long pigtail like Rooney's donkey's tail.' He also drinks 'gunpowder tea' at one point.


 * Interestingly, we all thought it was the only English folksong in existence that mentioned Hong Kong. Not so, evidently, and thanks for drawing that to my attention.  I'll probably finesse that sentence by calling Phil's song 'one of the very few English folksongs to mention Hong Kong, etc', and either removing the reference to Blow the Man Down altogether or relegating it to an informative footnote.


 * I've now found the booklet I was looking for, and have added a reference to our appearance in The Morris Tradition in 1985.


 * Djwilms (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  12:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do not mistake me with User:Djwilms. am from India, as mentioned earlier, me and User:Djwilms were having a debate around the article Ahathalla. I was just spying his edits and found the article on Hong Kong Morris.....:-). I found something new and interesting, hence thought of posting an opinion. If not in wiki, I would have never known about the Morris. Also sockpuppet investigations are already up against me, and anyone who touches Ahathalla .... :-) Cheers.CosmasIndi (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I have now found one of the sources I was looking for, and have added a reference in the section Early History to the feature on the Hong Kong Morris in the Morris Ring publication The Morris Tradition in 1985.

Djwilms (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also added a telling photograph from 1994. I can count 36 dancers in the photograph alone, and there were also others in the UK who didn't attend the twentieth anniversary celebrations.


 * Djwilms (talk) 08:41, 7 July 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.