Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)


 * 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   delete.  Wifione  Message 16:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:N, all but two sources are primary from the developer, the other ones are a estate agent listing and public transport info. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as an internet search turned up mostly classified listings. The page was DEPRODed in 2009 with reason being that it "is one of the largest and famous buildings in Tseung Kwan O New Town in Hong Kong", with no further notable info since. Michaela den (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  —Michaela den (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Completely fails notability. Zero mention on Google news, and the only thing I can find on Google search is marketing, promotion or real estate listings. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into Tiu Keng Leng or a new Private housing estates in Sai Kung District article. "the second largest private housing estate in Tseung Kwan O" and "over 5,000 residential units" hint that this property is not exactly a minor one. olivier (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Comment If this gets deleted, then it will set a precedent for most/all of Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles to be deleted. Dengero (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Caribbean Coast has been quietly deleted without discussion. olivier (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Comment - if those Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles are notable per WP:N as a standalone article then they will not be deleted but if they are not then they ought to be deleted.--Michaela den (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So merging is not an option? just erase all the content? olivier (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * keep There are at least 120 similar articles in Category:Private housing estates in Hong Kong; no reason to target this one for deletion. Just let it be improved over time; no hurry. Hmains (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My attempt to PROD some of these has just been reverted, using exact inverse logic. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    00:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - My research does not show sufficient independent sources that demonstrate notability. User Hmains raises a good point about the existence of 120 WP articles on similar buildings in Hong Kong, but that doesn't make this article notable (in fact, it just tells me that there are a lot of active WP editors in Hong Kong :-)  WP:Other stuff exists and all that. --Noleander (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tiu Keng Leng, where it is already mentioned in the housing subsection. I searched the Hong Kong Standard and found only passing references to this development.  Due to its size, its quite possible more sources exist but I cannot find any.  Much of the AfD discussion above has very little to do with notability of this complex.  Do the redirect, perhaps someday in the future it can be re-expanded.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of wp:notability.  Content is just self-description....not spammy / blatantly promotional,  but still sales type content.     No wp:realted references.   All but one are links that go to advertising pages on their own web site, and the only other one is a bus schedule supporting the statement that they are on a bus route. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Wikipedia would be better served if the debate about the fate of Hong Kong private housing estates articles was centralized, rather than spread across dozens of articles. I suggest to discuss the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, where I have given some background. Thank you. olivier (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the debate needs to be centralised, but I also believe that whatever consensus is reached in the centralised location can't override the WP:AfD/WP:GNG processes. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable as per WP:GNG. A central discussion might help editors in future when considering either starting an article like this or deleting one, but it can't pre-empt this discussion, or any similar discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing to indicate this is a notable housing development. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; falls short of the notability guideline. Feel free to nominate others. The "other articles exist" argument should carry little weight - but, similarly, whether this one is kept or deleted does not affect the notability of others so won't be much of a precedent. bobrayner (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2011 (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.