Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Parker Cable Car


 * 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or somebody can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mount Parker Cable Car

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough sources to determine that this is independently notable. Three sentences unlikely to grow larger - I suggest merger into another article's history section. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep a very weak reason for deletion. There is more than enough here for a stub, and in the future we may also have text about its cost construction how it worked, its demolition. Wikipedia is not improved by removing small articles.  With a topic as old as this it is not surprising that online sources are weak.  Before deleting this a proper newspaper search should be conducted.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete/merge. I want this to qualify for an article but sourcing is extremely weak. No results in Google Scholar, only one in Google Books and a dismal 36 in a regular Google search, most of which are either from the blog gwulo.com or from flickr.com. It's hard to establish notability with results like that. If we can find one other quality reliable source with significant coverage, my vote would shift to keep. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good argument for merger, where the sourced info can sit in an umbrella article until more sources exist to take it out. Eventually everything is independently notable, but while it grows this is a better way for an encyclopedia to organize and present the information. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Keep While the English name doesn't get many search results, I searched for the Chinese name and got quite a few more, several of which seem to support notability; this isn't surprising for a cable car in Hong Kong. I can't read Chinese, and would appreciate if someone who can could tell me how good the Chinese results are as sources, but it looks like this is a pretty well-covered topic. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The alternative would be to merge it with both the peaks that it connected, both of which have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But I'm afraid the system didn't connect two peaks. It connect a pass with somewhere near the coast. Jeffrey (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cable car systems are generally considered to be notable and I can frankly see no reason why this one shouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2012 (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.