Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuen Mun Town Centre


 * 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 Tuen Mun District. Merge away Spartaz Humbug! 20:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Tuen Mun Town Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Classic set of box-in-a-box (in-a-box-in-a-box-in-a-box...and so on). Ok there is Tuen Mun District, Tuen Mun New Town articles already, which they have legally/regulation defined boundaries. We also have Tuen Mun as article title, which don't have boundaries in legal sense since it is an non-administrative area but rich in history which predate the new town and the district. We also have Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) which should only cover the political seat at the local council. So, for this article and article title, it seem overlap to some degree (content can be entirely cover in Tuen Mun article for the sake of navigation), but more importantly WP:OR (currently no WP:RS too) since there is no definition of the "town centre" is located and the extent of it. Matthew hk (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Moreover, There is no such place "Tuen Mun Town Centre" (upper case Town Centre) but only "Tuen Mun town centre" or Tuen Mun Town Hall. Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the zh-wiki counterpart also unsourced. And by their OR definition, their "town centre" also cover another electoral constituency Siu Tsui. Matthew hk (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, you stated a source finally. But A. it is a primary source (a Government website about the Town Centre [sic] it partially owned and urban planned: the Town Hall and other public facility ). But B. it just one paragraph long. It amused me that did San Hui consider as part of the "Town Centre" or not, due to the very close proximity. Matthew hk (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment. Glad that you are amused. Hope you can end up making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Basic standard of a wikipedia is have some citation. In 2019 wiki standard most unsourced article could be boldly drafting it. Also, "Tuen Mun Area 10", "Tuen Mun Area 11" "Tuen Mun Area 34" are more readily have source by HKU Press and Town Planning Board and designed as a town centre. But did it equal to the "Town Centre" ? It seem so much WP:OR for the boundaries and inclusion and exclusion criteria to creates articles for southern Tuen Mun, northern Tuen Mun, eastern Tuen Mun, western Tuen Mun, and for this Afd central Tuen Mun aka Tuen Mun town centre or Town Centre [sic]. Or per WP:overlap, should it better presented at Tuen Mun New Town? It seem sick to have a dozen of articles for neighbourhood that the boundaries are concentric circles, and some boundaries are even fork defined. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I created this article 8 years ago by taking out content from the Tuen Mun District article that was way too long at that time. Obviously the requirements for articles in 2019 are higher than in 2011. Good that you spotted it. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No RS never a reason of Afd. It is OR and GNG. Instead, i digged out source that suggest area around San Hui are considered as most valuable but Area 11 house the "town centre" [sic] (And San Hui and Area 11 are just next to another). For the sake of overlap, should i tagged the residential landmark is located as San Hui-Tuen Mun Town Centre, Tuen Mun New Town, Tuen Mun, Tuen Mun District, a total of 5 articles, plus Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) when they vote? Unlike place that named after nature bay. Did it sounds too much navigation to have 6 articles that at least some should be trimmed to be sections of some articles? (For San Hui, now it is not different from other high residential area of the town, thus the article did merit to trimmed already to describe the history of the area as market town.) Matthew hk (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OK forgot to state Notability (geographic features). Tuen Mun Town Centre or Tuen Mun town centre is totally lie on the category Populated places without legal recognition (Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) had legal status but voting boundary is not based on neighbourhood in general; aka accused of gerrymandering). And further dig out the source, the government building complex such as Town Hall and the residential block that considered by media as "major" blocks of the town centre, opens in 1980s, but the residents of the new town already lives there since 1970s. So, a town without a "town centre" for a decade, or what is the definition of "Town Centre" again? Matthew hk (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Tuen Mun District. This is the commercial zone within an actual defined neighborhood; does not need a separate article. Reywas92Talk 07:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Or to Tuen Mun which is more specific.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually "Tuen Mun" had no defined boundary. Tuen Mun New Town (Tuen Mun Town) and Tuen Mun District have defined boundary. I had opened a Rfc to solve this overlapping issue of Tuen Mun Town v Tuen Mun. Or another example Tai Po New Town v Tai Po. Matthew hk (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Tuen Mun seems like a good solution. BD2412  T 04:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tuen Mun per above; most sensible solution. Britishfinance (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2019 (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.