Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Tsz 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   no consensus. Skomorokh 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tin Tsz Estate

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

Non-notable apartment buildings. News articles in Chinese turn out to all be police blotter type stories. Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or guide and does not need an article on every housing estate. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could provide enough sources to support the articles, but you said the sources are not reliable. It is just your thought, not fair. Please help find your "reliable" sources. No one could reach your "ideal" target.Ricky@36 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per NN. No offense ricky, but I don't see any claim to notability in the first place to be supported. It looks like just a housing estate like any other. Greenleaf (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I strongly disagree with this deletion at this point. Abductive, please stop making single RfDs for HK public housing estates. Can we have a general discussion instead to decide whether we should keep them all or not? Making repeatedly spot RfD on various such articles may look like an under-the-radar deletion operation of these articles, and I will report your behavior if you do not even try to seek consensus for the fate of the whole set of articles. Please also check Public housing in Hong Kong for some background on the subject and the importance of Public Housing and public housing estates in HK. Just cutting articles is not the solution. Abductive, please be more constructive, rather than a systematic destructor of other people's work. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) (also contributing as User:Underwaterbuffalo on these articles)
 * As I have previously stated, I am not trying to get all of these deleted. Just the clearly non-notable ones. This sort of thing happens every now and then; a small crew of editors create articles for all the members of a class of entities. After some time, these become numerous enough to attract attention. The proper venue for discussion is here, at AfD. As I mentioned already, I have even added a reference establishing notability to the article on Telford Garden and removed the notability tag placed there by another user as a demonstration. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The proper place to discuss things like this is not only RfD. It should also be discussed with people from WikiProject Hong Kong. I am rightfully tagging Ricky's articles as part of the project and you cannot ignore it. This kind of single-article discussions are diluting the overall discussion (we are talking about a set of ~200 estates) and only attract a very small number of people, and virtually noone who may have any knowledge of the subject, or is member of the relevant WikiProject. Ricky has created stubs that mostly look useless taken individually, and people coming to RfD seeing that will of course always agree with you. I would do so as well if I did not have knowledge of the subject matter. If your purpose is truly to improve Wikipedia, then please try to get a consensus from a broad range of people, not only from the occasional visitors of your RfD discussions. olivier (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * oliver, as an adminstrator, you should have encouraged the editors you have been working with to look for reliable sources, and explained to them the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, rather than letting them waste time making an article on every apartment complex in Hong Kong. The reason these articles attract few editors is that their subject matter is not that important. I have tried to explain to Ricky@36 and Underwaterbuffalo (when I was unaware that it was your sock) the need for sources. I also note that other editors have on tagged the articles for sources and for notability, and some have redirected them only to be reverted. A few days ago, you convinced Gordonrox24 to withdraw his nomination of Model Housing Estate using this sort of argumentation. So it is clear that when editors stumble upon these articles, they are not instantaneously convinced that all housing estates in Hong Kong are notable. Instead they run into a team of an earnest content provider and a stealth admin. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Underwaterbuffalo is not a sock. It has never interfered with the discussions of Olivier. I have created this for rightful reasons that I do not feel the need to explain to you. I know that you have created alternate accounts as well, so please label mine properly. I was not acting as a stealth admin at the time but as a regular user. It is interesting to note your change in attitude now that I have decided to use my admin credibility to continue this discussion. Gordonrox24 was convinced by a normal user account, using regular user arguments. Maybe I have been with Wikipedia since too long, but a practice that I have seen over time is that pathetic stubs are in some cases written first, and sources and interest grow over time. The act of creating the pathetic stub is no waste of time by itself, and I respect your efforts to push editors to provide reliable sources once these articles have been written. Still, I disagree with the practice of not treating a set of articles as a set. Taking them separately make them look useless. You never addressed my point about the French communes: many people have tagged many articles as non notable, until it was agreed that the set was useful, as a set. Why don't you follow your logic and tag Bretx for deletion, and see what happens. olivier (talk) 09:32, 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 arguing with an article supporter, without resolution. 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) 09:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As for your argument that an apartment building is an inhabited geographic place and is therefore automatically notable, all I can say is that I don't see many articles on apartment buildings in other cities, and when I do, they are usually notorious ones like Pruitt-Igoe or architectural award-winners like Aqua, Chicago. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, let's see what other people have to say. Thanks for your positive attitude in the discussion. olivier (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You just point the buildings in your country, and restrict other country's buildings. It seems that you do not really obey the regulations of Wikipedia, but really delete articles rather than United States. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: More sources are added in the article. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Umofomo (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Public housing in Hong Kong
I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments! olivier (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a non-notable building. Fails WP:GNG. Esradekan (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute!. Failing WP:GNG means that the topic does not satisfy the criteria for a stand-alone article. It does not mean that the content should be erased. It could be merged into another article. So your conclusion NO WP:GNG => delete is not appropriate. 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 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) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Umofomo (talk) 21:07, 14 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.