Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun On 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Shun On Estate

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I haven't been able to conduct full WP:BEFORE checks for this, however, given that there's been 2 similar AfDs (Articles for deletion/Cascades, Hong Kong, Articles for deletion/Easeful Court), and its notability has been subject to dispute among new page reviewers and established editors, I'm bringing up this here for a more definitive outcome. MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator openly states they have not conducted a full WP:BEFORE and also did not mention two similar AfDs that ended in keep and no consensus (Articles for deletion/Highland Park (Hong Kong), Articles for deletion/Tin Ching Estate) so I don't feel there is a valid rationale here. NemesisAT (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up these two AfDs. I initially mentioned the ones that I skimmed from the discussion going on in the article history. Best, MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem NemesisAT (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , would you review the sources I posted below and expand your support for retention to be based on those sources if you agree those sources establish notability? The closing admin may not give much weight to an argument that is not based on sources. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Commented below, thanks NemesisAT (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect' to Shun Lee other editors may be able to find additional usable sources in Chinese that I am unable to, in which case I would change my !vote, but based on the current sourcing, my searches in English, and cursory searches in Chinese, I don't see GNG coverage. signed,Rosguill talk 14:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Articles from The Kung Sheung Daily News (ordered chronologically from 1978 to 1984):     <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> <li>Articles from Wah Kiu Yat Po (ordered chronologically from 1978 to 1983):<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> <li>Article from Ta Kung Pao:<ol> <li></li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shun On Estate to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Can you clarify, are the excerpts you added above the entirety of coverage of Shun On Estate in each article, or just a sampling? As written, most of these excerpts seem WP:ROUTINE, rather than proper secondary analysis. signed,Rosguill talk 14:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied below. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring the article, . Thank you for bringing this article to AfD,, to prevent an edit war from happening. From Deletion policy: "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Articles for Deletion." A redirect had been reverted in the past, so per the policy, it should not have been redirected again without a prior consensus. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment While I'm unable to read the papers shared by Cunard, the excerpts do suggest there is significant coverage here. WP:ROUTINE is just an essay, the important guideline is WP:GNG which I feel has been met. NemesisAT (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I got WP:ROUTINE confused with WP:MILL. The WP:ROUTINE argument used above is invalid as that is a notability guideline for events. NemesisAT (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right about the links being mixed up, but the concern about routine coverage is still relevant to this discussion, as routine coverage is trivial and fails the GNG criterion of significant coverage. signed,Rosguill talk 14:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the coverage is trivial. If an article has multiple paragraphs (for example) on the construction of the tower blocks, then that counts as significant coverage in my view. NemesisAT (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * These are not excerpts from the newspaper article. These are newspaper headlines. Each newspaper article spends at least several paragraphs discussing Shun On Estate. The sustained extensive coverage in reliable sources allow the public housing estate to meet Notability. WP:ROUTINE redirects to Notability (events). A public housing estate is not an event. As a public housing estate, Shun On Estate is owned by the Hong Kong Housing Authority, a government agency. "Routine coverage" should not be applied to newspaper articles about public housing estates. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep' The Chinese sources contain substantive coverage of the subject and easily satisfy the notability guidelines. This is a very unsatisfactory AfD: the nominator explicitly did not do WP:BEFORE and some editors seem to dismiss the Chinese sources very cursorily without being able to read them. Atchom (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. 124.217.188.46 (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep' per Cunard. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shun On Estate to pass GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient WP:RS providing the WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG...Bringing an article to AfD causes lots of editors to spend a significant amount of time evaluating whether it should be kept or deleted. Rather than waste untold hours of people's time, a set of actions to be taken before nominating an article for deletion has been established. This is not optional! Bringing an article to AfD without performing adequate BEFORE is disrespectuful of the value of other editors time. If you can't or won't perform a thorough WP:BEFORE, please wait to until you can before nominating it. There is no deadline to delete an article that's been around for 13 years, why rush to nominate it and waste other people's time until you've taken the time to do the basic verification steps that have been established by consensus? Jacona (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly enough RS Coverage. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 13:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.