Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wah Ming Estate
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 August 14. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wah Ming Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:EXIST. There are no sources which attest to this subject's notabilty. So far, this article is but a directory listing. Without sources, it is likely to remain so. Move to delete. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I strongly disagree with this deletion. 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? You have substantially contributed to Public housing in Hong Kong (which I have moved from "Public housing estate" to broaden the scope of the article), so your opinion is certainly valuable. Nevertheless, making repeatedly spot RfD on various such articles may look like a under-the-radar deletion operation of these articles. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) (also contributing as User:Underwaterbuffalo on these articles)[reply]
Comment: 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) this comment reformatted by Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Comment DGG is wrong; sources are readily available online about this estate; translated by Google, or this one; about a Swine flue case. Also, there are some lurid crime stories. I think the first source is actually about the Wah Ming Estate, and so I would not have nominated this one for deletion. The ones that I did nominate do not have any such sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am from Hong Kong, but I am not the creator of this article. Wah Ming Estate is a large and famous public housing estate in Northern New Territories, Hong Kong. In fact, no public housing estate articles needs to be deleted except that such estates do not really exist. However, the format of Wah Ming Estate article is not the same as "standard" wikipedia format. The format may need to be changed soon. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I think someone may have political aims to remove the articles which are not from Western countries, by using certain leaks of the articles to delete them. I hope I am too sensitive to see this phenomenon, although this always happens in English Wikipedia. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ricky, I certainly don't think that there is any conspiracy against Hong Kong estates articles. At the very least these discussions are pushing for the improvement of the quality of the coverage of the topic in Wikipedia, and hey, some people may even become more interested about the topic in the process (and yes, this is including myself). olivier (talk) 09:31, 10 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.