Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public housing in Hong Kong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. (Note: This discussion had taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shek Yam East Estate.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in conformity with many many other articles on Wikipedia. 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) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is our usual practise to keep articles on human settlements and no good case has been made to exclude this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it's an apartment complex, not a settlement. We don't have articles on every suburban subdivision. Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have numerous articles like Samper del Salz which only required a few clicks of Special:Random to find. Notice the population. The article in question is a more substantial settlement and so there is better reason to keep it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Umofomo (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.