Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shek Mun Estate


 * 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   redirect to Public housing in Hong Kong. We now have an external consensus to redirect abd merge, I did the redirect so feel free to merge as appropriate Spartaz Humbug! 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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   '''Close suspended for one week to allow further discussion at WP:HK. I suggest no further articles are nominated pending a conclusion there. Please prod me in a week to revisit this. '''. Spartaz Humbug! 23:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Shek Mun Estate

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable apartment buildings. 20 English Google hits, 48 Chinese Google hits. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your evidence is wrong because there are more number of links shown in Shek Mun Estate or, which gives more number of the artciles than you claimed. You'd better to think about any valuable topics to contribute Wikipedia, rather than criticizing others' articles. Please don't do these silly things again. Ricky@36 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those Google searches are done without quotes, and still I see nothing resembling a secondary source among them. According to Henrik's tool, Shek Mun Estate gets 2.5 page views a day. That does not convince me that this housing project is of broad, encyclopedic interest. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Few people browse it, but it does not mean that it needs to be deleted. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A topic needs secondary sources to justify an encyclopedia article on it. This estate hasn't got those. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion. You and I can post back and forth on this forever, and the closing admin will completely ignore us, because it consists of the nominator (me) arguing with the article creator (you). Obviously, the nominator feels that article should be deleted, and the article creator feels it should not be. Please allow the AfD process to run its course, and if people put forward convincing arguments for keeping it, the article will not be deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added secondary source for it. OK now? Please close this deletion tag. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * YouTube and a forum posting aren't reliable sources. Please, please read WP:RS. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about another one? Ricky@36 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it just requests secondary sources, I think you just add secondary source tag rather than suggesting deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that there are any reliable, secondary sources for Shek Mun Estate, and I don't want people to waste their time on an article if it has no hope. How about I add a reliable source to a different estate article, supporting something the article says? Abductive  (reasoning) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see you will help to find sources for the estate article. The only way for you is to find reasons (or excuses) to delete them. If you really help, I think you changed mind and I am very happy for it. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. "References" currently found on the page are not from reliable, independent sources.  With regrets,  Un  sch  ool  14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You delete my sources and said there are not enough source. Are you OK? Ricky@36 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't modify the article to support your deletion reason Ricky@36 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I thought I might get that reaction.  Please note:
 * I identifed you as lacking adequate sources before deleting your links, not after. Even with the links, it was inadequate.
 * I deleted the links because they were irrelevant. A discussion of rent ceilings (on one source)?  There was nothing in the article on that, so it was irrelevant.  (And don't put in a discussion of rent ceilings just to justify putting the source back in; that's not a sufficiently significant topic to belong in the article.)  Same was true of the other "sources" I deleted.  They weren't supportive of the article.
 * I stand by my statement: No significant coverage in reliable sources. True when I wrote it, true now. Sorry.  Un  sch  ool  16:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment to other editors. Please make sure you actually open up the links that this editor has placed in the article. I deleted four of them as having absolutely no supportive value to the article, and the other two I was unable to open (my current computer's fault, not the links). Anyway, the editor has restored the links, despite my explanations. I'm not getting into an edit war over what I think is an obvious delete, but I just wanted to share this with anyone who, with a cursory glance might think, "Wow--six sources!" Cheers. Un sch  ool  18:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just by virtue of being a major public housing project, it is assumed extensive government records exist, from proposal to construction to management. --Oakshade (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, I don't see why it matters that there are extensive government records. There's government records on every street that has been built in the town I live in, yet I wouldn't be so egocentric as to think that the one on which I live is worthy of a Wikipedia article.  Having said that, I think I have discovered why Ricky@36 is so determined to have this article continue to exist.  Why shouldn't it, when this exists?  Holy cow, I feel like I've picked up a board in my yard and discovered a colony of termites right next to my house.  What in the world makes each of these dozens of complexes noteworthy?  I'm 100% totally baffled.  My initial impulse would be to propose the entire category for deletion, but I'm sure that someone can explain this to me, right.   Un  sch  ool  01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it safe to assume that I can now create articles for Amesbury Rosalind Estate, Antioch Towers, Arbor Park Apartments, Arbor Park Village, Allerton Apartments, and Abington Arms, all government housing located in Cleveland? (And that's just the "A"s.)  Un  sch  ool  01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you can do this. As you said, if there are enough sources, you can do it. Why not? You just restrict your thought. If you want to be a "deletion specialists", I suggest you trying to delete Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong to finish your "whole target". You can say you (or your "friends") don't know Hong Kong buildings. What is Shek Kip Mei Estate, Sai Wan Estate, Sau Mau Ping Estate, Model Housing Estate, Wah Fu Estate? Do you know them when you are not from Hong Kong? Then they are not notiable and should be deleted. If you are confident, you can ask for their deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Government sources are considered reliable independent sources per WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, given the emphasis that I placed earlier on Ricky needing reliable sources, I can understand you proffering that information. However, an additional subject comes to mind.  Yes, government sources are inherently reliable.  But does that mean that the subject of such records is automatically considered to be noteworthy?  That was my point in my previous post.  Since I can find government records detailing the construction of the street I live on, can I not write an article on it, as well as the street I lived on five years ago and ten years ago and forty years ago?  And can I not write an article on every one of the thousands of public housing developments in the United States, since plenty of government sources exist on those?  That is the question I am now asking.   Un  sch  ool  04:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you bringing a straw man into this? Nobody is claiming every public housing project in Hong Kong or anywhere else is notable, but those on this large scale are.  To answer your question on public housing developments in the United states, in fact, some of them are notable.  Altgeld Gardens, Chicago, Stateway Gardens, Robert Taylor Homes and First Houses, for examples.--Oakshade (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, of course there are noteworthy housing complexes. But did you look at Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong?  Do you believe that there are 188 "noteworthy" complexes in Hong Kong?  To read their articles, none of them appear to make any claims at being noteworthy, other than the fact of their existence.  That was my point above.  Un  sch  ool  00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge, but don't bluntly delete. I have opened a discussion to figure out what should be done with Hong Kong public housing estates in general at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. I believe that it is better to discuss the issue in one place rather than have User:Abductive tag one article per day and initiate a discussion with different sets of users each time, using basically always the same arguments without possible alternative outcome than a pure deletion. Yes I believe that the topic of Public housing in Hong Kong is of high importance, one reason being that about half of the population lives in some sort of publicly sponsored housing. I believe that these estates have a value as a set. Maybe we do not need an individual article for each of them, but a simple deletion is not appropriate, and some part of the material will re-emerge anyway in the future when other contributors feel that it is time to have the topic covered. Again, please have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong and contribute your thoughts there. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, olivier, for your reasoned suggestion. Inspired by your post here I have replied to the discussion at WikiProject Hong Kong  Un  sch  ool  00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep as with many other articles on Wikipedia in all cities. Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable--and there will always be references if they are looked for. The Googles are not appropriate for this sort of subject. Printed newspapers are. There is always enough steps in the planning to get articles in the appropriate general and specialized news sources.DGG (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove it. This place was built in 2009; surely there should be sources? Hong Kong has newspapers that are online. I say that it is more likely that nobody thought it was interesting enough to write about. As an experiment, pick some recently built high-rise apartment building in you area, and it won't have sources either. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (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.


 * 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.