Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tung Choi Street


 * 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. There's considerable uncertainty here as to whether this is better presented as a stand alone article or merged into Mong Kok, but no consensus, and it's not really a matter for AfD anyhow. Wily D 13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tung Choi Street

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Notability and WP:RS.

The article was previously PROD but the tag was removed by with the comment, "Wikipedia is a gazeteer. You are meant to look for sources with a search engine. Is in Google Maps. Plausible redirect."

To counter this I need point out that Wikipedia is |not a gazeteer (geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map): see WP:NOTDIR. Nor is it a tourist guidebook: see WP:NOTGUIDE.

It is insufficient to say that sources exist: see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. You should name sources to prove notability. Before PROD a search was done. This road is only mentioned as a address for other locations such as Ladies' Market. The market may or may not be notable but since notability is not inherited, that does not mean the road becomes notable. The single reference on the article is an example of this, it contains no information about the road what so ever, but has a single sentence mentioning that Ladies' Market exists.

The existence of this road in Google Maps is irrelevant. Every road in the world seems to be in Google Maps: see Existence does not prove notability. Coverage in Google Maps does not prove notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Five pillars clearly states that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. James500 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of similar nominations is irrelevant. Besides it is not a mass nomination. The world "mass" is an exaggeration. You are implying that no time or consideration was given to the article before nominating. This is not true. Considerable time was given to it. In contrast James500 is mass opposing. Did you actually read the article or search for sources before posting here. The reason for nominating is that this subject is not notable and unreferenced. Please make a contribution here that deals with that issue. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe not a "mass nomination" (although this was not mentioned in this discussion), but still 37 articles PRODed and/or AdDed within a few days. It's certainly requiring a considerable time from the community to deal with that. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete While I agree that this is a non-notable road, I would like to point out that the assertation that "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer" is erronious. Quoting the Five Pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. However the gazetteer portion of Wikipedia is, by long-standing consensus, limited to roads at the state-numbered-route level and above; all others must pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. Coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. James500 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mong Kok article, where the street is mentioned and somewhat described. Several former street articles are now redirecting to "Mong Kok", and the section "Streets and markets" was created for this purpose. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this one is on the line between keep and merge. Extensive sources can be seen at GBooks and elsewhere about the two well-known street markets located primarily on this street. There's a chapter dedicated to this street and the adjoining Sai Yeung Choi Street in this book: Qizhang Dong, Atlas: The Archaeology of an Imaginary City (Columbia University Press, 2013), ISBN 978-0231504225, c. 38.  On other hand, given the existence of the well-organized inventory of markets at Mong Kok, a merge may be sufficient unless and until there's more to say about the street. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say redirect to Mong Kok at this time. Almost all information is already at MK article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The famous Goldfish Market is in Tung Choi Street, mentioned here. --Good afternoon (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not inherited.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "street" has certainly been defined so as to effectively include the facades of the buildings on either side and might arguably include the buildings themselves. I think that for practical reasons, an article on a street will have to be taken to include the buildings. James500 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, and for support to that viewpoint, street addresses are assigned to property adjacent to the street property. Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Nomination stipulates that the WP:V verifiability of this topic occurs in Google maps.  Nomination does not analyze the WP:BEFORE B5 effects that would be done to the encyclopedia by creating red links.  WP:BEFORE B6 analysis has not been done by any participant.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep All public roads in developed countries are wp:notable as evidenced by multiple criteria; including ubiquitous maps with significant detail, GPS devices sold for vehicles, a mail delivery system used worldwide for centuries, radio/TV/Google traffic reports, emergency crews ready to respond to traffic accidents, and public research on traffic volume at specific intersections.  The applicable policy (WP:N is a guideline) is WP:IINFO, which for this road no evidence has been provided that WP:IINFO is anywhere near to being applicable, on the contrary, it has been well shown that the topic has a place in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All public roads in developed countries are wp:notable as evidenced by multiple criteria... Er...no. Not just no, but NO. This is quite simply one of the wrongest statements I've ever seen on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or maybe merge. Notable as one of the (few) hawker permitted streets which has achieved the most fame. Hawking activities there have been subject to academic study. Will add refs when I have more time. Citobun (talk) 01:25, 25 August 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.