Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Mine Bay Beach


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Silver Mine Bay Beach

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable beach. Claims of notability include a man drowning in waters near the beach, a beach house catching fire, and a red tide, oil spill, and shark sighting all contributing the the beach being closed. These run of the mill news stories lead to some mention of the beach in reliable sources but are in no way significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Article creator disagrees so bringing here to resolve dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Beaches of Hong Kong or Mui Wo. I only found passing mentions.--Pontificalibus 14:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Beaches of Hong Kong or Mui Wo Reywas92Talk 17:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom. There are several gazetted beaches in Hong Kong. I had removed my contributions to the beach being closed. I had restructured the article to show only the improvements and the number of visitors visiting the beach. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The nom is to delete on the basis of insufficient notability, there remains no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources Polyamorph (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But I have found reliable sources regarding the improvements and the number of visitors visiting the beach. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I saw this in the AFDs and thought to myself "Nah, that couldn't be the beach on Lantau". Well, blow me down. HK isn't globally renown for it's beaches (compared to food or financial sector at least), but it's basically a cluster of tropical islands. Conde Nast lists it in Top 19 HK Beaches. I think it was one of the major tourist attractions to do on Lantau Island besides seeing the big Buddha and the ferry service made it really easy to access from the (HK) island. While I can see the benefit of merging it with Mui O, I think the village and the beach are distinctive enough entities in this case. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is not significant coverage, simply giving the location and dimensions. As to tourist attractions on Lantau, I really don't think this beach ranks above Disneyland or even Tai O fishing village, which is probably why it isn't discussed in detail in multiple sources. There isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article, and it can be perfectly well covered in the two article mentioned above.Pontificalibus 12:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. I support merge to Mui Wo. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Decline merge. The beach is named for its silver mine which was in Mui Wo in the 19th century. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How does the fact that beach is named after a mine in Mui Wo make it independently notable from the town? Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment Interesting: in WW2, the beach was the site of Japanese war crimes in which the army was "rounding up villagers and bringing them down to the beach at Silver Mine Bay where several were killed...". Doesn't name which villages, but the beach seems to be of historical and legal relevance. in "Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estheim (talk • contribs) 07:56, April 29, 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but the reference is still not even close to establishing independent notability of the beach. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Beaches of Hong Kong - There are quite some sources in Chinese but they are still not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.  Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 10:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "One of the most convenient beaches on Lantau Island, long and narrow Silvermine Bay is located just a few minutes’ walk from the Mui Wo ferry pier. It’s a family favorite, with 688 feet of white sand and emerald-green mountains on either side." Newspaper articles retrieved through Hong Kong Public Libraries:   <li></li> <li></li> </li></ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li>Each of these guidebooks have a few sentences of coverage about the Silvermine Bay Beach that can be used to expand the article: 1 (2008), 2 (2015), 3 (2007), 4 (1995), 5 (1995), and 6 (1978). </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Silvermine Bay Beach to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Most of the sources you list are far from significant coverage and several are dubious in terms of reliability - see comment by who already addressed some of the chinese sources. Polyamorph (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources only have a few sentences of coverage (the guidebooks I mentioned in the seventh bullet point in my list of sources) so are not significant coverage. But there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources through the Condé Nast Traveler review and the newspaper articles retrieved through Hong Kong Public Libraries to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Conde Nast Traveler seems to be some opinion piece / interview, it's not exactly the best quality source. How are the newspaper articles evidence of significant coverage? They just appear to be a bunch of Chinese newspaper cuttings and there is no indication to me, not being fluent in chinese, how much relates to the actual beach. The burden of proof then lies with you. Polyamorph (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Condé Nast Traveler article is a review of the beach from a reputable publication. The journalist chose to write the article in the style where she poses a list of questions and answers the questions herself. This beach review in a travel magazine is a high-quality reliable source. The newspaper articles retrieved through Hong Kong Public Libraries are all about the beach and provide significant coverage of it. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A high quality source for a tourist looking for a nice beach perhaps, but for wikipedia, which is not a travel guide, not so useful IMO. Polyamorph (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems apparent that the nominator doesn't actually want to delete this and so they are just forum shopping in bringing it here. The beach in question is one of the most popular in the area and there are numerous sources documenting this and related factors such as its geology and facilities.  On a personal note, one of the most remarkable incidents at the HK Wikimania, was being taken on a hair-raising coach ride to the similar Shek O beach, where we were confined in a compound for several hours.  The locals seemed to think that this was a great treat but I found it more reminiscent of a WW2 prison camp.  Another inmate whispered to me, "It's like a vision of hell!"   may remember this too... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember it well. After the bus ride we queued in line for two hours to get to the food and drinks sheds only to find that there was no food and drink left and it was time to trek back to the busses. It was the other one of the two organised evenings where food and drink was only enough for the WMF and their privileged guests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That bus ride, haha. It's worth it to enjoy a beer in Stanley. Estheim (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for deletion because it clearly fails WP:GNG. That is NOT forum shopping. That said, I would support a merge on the basis of comments here. You speak of sources but provide none. Your visit to a different beach during Wikimania 2013 is wholly irrelevant. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kudpung (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Keep, more than sufficiently sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2021 (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.