Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Horizons (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator Philg88 ♦talk 06:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

South Horizons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable housing estate. Delete or redirect to Private housing estates in Hong Kong Philg88 ♦talk 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: this seems to require a wider discussion on all Hong Kong housing estates. Most estates listed on Private housing estates in Hong Kong have relatively well developed articles. -Zanhe (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Hello Philg88 please define a notable housing estate in Hong Kong, or are you questioning notability of all HKG housing estates? This housing estate is a the terminus of the Hong Kong MTR extension South Horizons Station. Philg88 you questioning the merit of housing estates in HKG having pages? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment  @Zanhe, Jtbobwaysf:   In this case, if you strip out all the travel guide/gazeteer stuff, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia in the first place, you are left with a basic description of where South Horizons is, when it was built and how many residential units it contains, which by no means makes it notable. These details can easily be covered in Private housing estates in Hong Kong. This topic area is similar to the various AfDs that have arisen in connection with List of streets and roads in Hong Kong - just like roads, some private housing estates are notable, some aren't and this one isn't.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment  @Zanhe, Philg88:   I disagree that it is similar to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. I guess there are 20 or more housing estates that are listed in wikipedia, and if you propose to delete those then there should be a general discussion to as to all of them and a selection/notability criteria established. Singling out particular estates one by one and deleting them through AfD is the wrong protocol in my opinion. Maybe the community will agree with you and seek to move all housing estates to one page, who knows. But it at least should be addressed in that manner. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. The proposal is to redirect this non-notable article topic to Private housing estates in Hong Kong, not delete it outright. There doesn't need to be a general discussion as the guidelines are quite clear—if a topic does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. Philg88 ♦talk 10:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe Jtbobwaysf is not missing the point that much: your nomination reads "Delete or redirect", not redirect only. Olivier (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here South China Morning Post alone has three pages of tagged articles. I guess if you add the other regional newspapers it will be more than 100 articles. And if you add the MTR extension news articles maybe it will exceed 1000...http://www.scmp.com/topics/south-horizons Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These are passing mentions of South Horizons or news reports of local events. The fact that residents think there aren't enough post boxes and that sometimes there are car crashes nearby does not make the estate notable. Wikipedia is is not a newspaper and topics require in depth and significant coverage, which this isn't. Overall, the quality of search results matters more than the raw number. Philg88 ♦talk 12:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that South China Morning Post has a tag for it on its website means it is notable enough and/or in the news frequent enough to merit a tag. I doubt they tag everything in Hong Kong. The search term "South Horizons Hong Kong" yields 474 hits in google books. https://www.google.com/search?q=south+horizons&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22south+horizons%22+hong+kong&tbm=bks&start=50 . The google search term "South Horizons Hong Kong yields 116,000 web page hits. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22south+horizons%22+hong+kong&biw=1280&bih=673&source=lnms&sa=X&psj=1&psj=1&psj=1&psj=1&ei=lucVVKD3IcKrogTVxIGABw&ved=0CAUQ_AUoADgy ... That is far more citations that the normal page that goes up for AfD Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS for more information on the validity of Google search results. Philg88 ♦talk 05:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Philg88, WP:GOOGLEHITS states one should look further to google books. Note the 474 hits in google books. The other AfDs I have seen might have had 1-2 google books hits, or maybe ten. I have never seen an AfD nomination that had approaching 500 google books hits... South Horizong has a long history in Hong Kong, which started as the Hongkong Electric Company Ap Lei Chau power station (which has no wikipedia page, and is instead a re-direct), then today continues as a very large development (almost large enough to be a village in many countries), and now into the future as the terminus for the major/historic Hong_Kong_MTR extension of the South Island Line. It seems your suggestion is broader than is being disclosed here, in that you promote deleting (you call a redirect) the list of pages in wikipedia that do not meet some obscure and undefined notability guideline. (You have listed, wikipedia is not a newspaper, not a guidebook, etc.) But this fails to deal with the fact that the Ap Lei Chau Power Station power station was wiki page was also deleted (redirected) to Hongkong Electric Company. Thus your suggestion appears to be that neither the former power station, nor the current housing estate are notable. Or are you proposing you will re-create Ap Lei Chau Power Station, and the re-direct the South Horizons? I guess you are not offering to do this. This notion of deleting data 'to organize through redirect' is destructive to wikipedia for clearly valuable entries... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. With 31,496 inhabitants, South Horizons is the most populous estate (private or public) in the Southern District of Hong Kong (there are 18 districts). Such a population figure would be the one of a rather large village, indeed. As a comparison, 57% of the 36,569 communes of France have fewer than 500 inhabitants. Olivier (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect Housing estates can be notable, if it has received non-trival coverage in reliable sources. (e.g. coverage of its historic value or architectural importance ,zh:哥伦比亚住宅圈 as an example.)  But this one doesn't meet this standard. Further more, this is the third nomination., both of the first two were closed as delete.114.81.255.37 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the multiple AfDs, I should have mentioned that in the nomination. Philg88 ♦talk 15:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: although I couldn't find any guideline on the notability of urban housing estates, I think Wikipedia's policy is that all verifiable human settlements, even tiny villages, are notable. Many large housing estates in Hong Kong, including South Horizons, are essentially self-contained neighbourhoods with thousands of residents or more. South Horizons even has its own MTR station under construction. I don't see how these estates are less notable than tiny villages, or how South Horizons is less notable than the MTR station that serves it. -Zanhe (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Villiages and housing estates are two different types of things, according to WP:GEOLAND. The word "notability" in your comment reads like "importance" for me, but notability is not the same as importance. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A housing complex does not fall within the definition of a human settlement, which in this case is Ap Lei Chau, not South Horizons. Philg88 ♦talk 05:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. South Horizons housing estate is much closer to the definition of human settlement than Ap Lei Chau. Ap Lei Chau is an island, a geographical feature, which has had historical human settlements (villages), which have been replaced by housing estates. South Horizons operates as a community, with elected representatives. The island does not. Olivier (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to the article, South Horizons is built on the site of a former power station. By no stretch of the imagination does that count as a "historical human settlement." Philg88 ♦talk 05:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nothing in the definition of "human settlement" requires it to be historical. Brasília, founded in 1960, certainly qualifies as a "human settlement". My point above what that the housing estates have replaced the historical settlements of Ap Lei Chau, not that they are historical themselves. Olivier (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Update Quite a few sources have been added and the article's quality has been significantly improved. --114.81.255.37 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The expansion has certainly established the notability of the former power station on the site, but that is not inherited by the succeeding development. South Horizons wasn't notable in 2006 nor in 2007 and it still isn't. The addition of news stories falling under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and "references" dealing with adjunct buildings such as kindergartens isn't going to change that. Philg88 ♦talk 05:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The 2007 deletion certainly does not prove that the topic is not notable, as you seem to imply by linking it. The discussion was closed as "delete" after it had attracted a grand total of 2 opinions, one "weak delete" and one "delete" with the comment "Delete unless sourced to show that this particular development is notable". The discussion was relisted twice "to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached". It was closed after the second relisting had not attracted any comment. I believe that today, such an AfD discussion would be closed as "no consensus" or would be closed at a later point. Olivier (talk)
 * Reply Given the quality of its content and sources, the article should at least be merged. ( Argument "if you strip out all the travel guide/gazeteer stuff, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia in the first place, you are left with a basic description of where South Horizons is, when it was built and how many residential units it contains, which by no means makes it notable. These details can easily be covered in Private housing estates in Hong Kong" is no longer valid.) But keep or merge is outside AfD's scope.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think this one is notable by virtue of its size and its status as a significant self-contained neighbourhood well-known among HKers, and the article is shaping up decently. Citobun (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2014 (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.