Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonderland Villas


 * 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wonderland Villas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable apartment block. The sources themselves reflect this: 1 & 2 are WP:PRIMARY, whilst 3, 4 & 5 are purely technical (and passing) mentions on Hong Kong's Transport dept website. Fails WP:GEOFEAT as not possessing  and likewise that '.' No significant coverage of any depth or persistence; couple of nice pics though This is what WP is not''- in this case, a guide. Muffled Pocketed  15:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I concur literally none of this is actually amounting to substance and there is basically no actual convincing significance, so that summarizes it to some simple information about a local building. SwisterTwister   talk  18:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG through sources like, , , etc. SST  flyer  02:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * General comment that sources 1 & 2 are a tabloid- the Apple Daily- that is heavily reliant on advertising, and #3- am730 is not only also a tabloid, but a free newspaper. From our article:  of am730. Property eh? Now there's'' a coincidence ;)  Muffled  Pocketed  09:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Centaline is a property agent chain, not the developer, so the "independence" criterion of sourcing is certainly satisfied. I'm not sure Fortuna's comment is very helpful because it is a sweeping generalisation which attempts to discard all tabloid newspapers as reliable sources for all matters. Deryck C. 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Passes WP:NGEO - legally recognised locality with information attributable to reliable sources. Deryck C. 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass WP:NGEO. A housing development is not a municipality of any kind. There would need to be some kind of in-depth coverage in independent RS to establish notability per WP:GNG. MB 19:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've stated my views above; but I remind all that, as per WP:GEOFEAT, ''. Muffled Pocketed  20:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Uncertain. Inclusion of housing estates is not automatic--and though I do not see any attempt at reliable sourcing here, the chinese WP article does seem to have considerably more sourcing, but I am not able to read them, and therefore cannot tell if the sourcing is adequate.  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - As for the comment above, translating these and understanding them the best I can even without translation seems to show the obvious signs of either listings or other triviality, the fact they also apparently care to specify amenities and other triviality so that gives nothing else beyond simple local guides. Also, now as for the "Localities are considered notable", this is a fact, but not when they are simply local housing buildings, since they are not an actual locality such as a village or town, hence not applicable. SwisterTwister   talk  07:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm just not seeing the kind of 3rd party coverage to convince me that this is anything other than a common ordinary apartment building. Joyous! | Talk 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This looks equivalent to what we call "condos" in Singapore. Approx 1500 units (assuming the information is correct) is actually not much. Looking at the equivalent for Singapore articles, this shouldn't exist as a standalone page. The sourcing is also not that great. It could possibly find a mention in an article about the locality/neighbourhood if there is one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2016 (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.