Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Trams Station

Add links
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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Trams Station[edit]


[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Hong Kong Trams Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It was a tiny shop-sized "museum" in a shopping mall. For failing WP:GNG, on Apple Daily (this link), famous for tabloid journalism and paid reporting on shops, had an article half on the interview of the founder, and some routine and rephrasing on the founder's introduction on those tiny collections, which were routine coverage. Another article of the same newspaper, was an interview of the mother of the founder of the museum, yet with routine coverage on the museum.

Moreover, the current English version of the article looks like speedy G11 material.

While on Chinese version, this link (Oriental Daily) was about the tram, and one sentence routine coverage about the museum. While this link (Sing Tao Daily) was also one paragraph routine coverage about the museum and the rest were about the tram. Matthew_hk tc 15:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong_Kong_Trams_Station[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of independent sources have been added to the article to establish notability and squash this deletion proposal (finding ways to keep content is much more fun than making hasty proposals to delete content). It was a bit of a Pyrrhic victory, however, as I discovered that the museum closed less than a month ago. Jackdude101 talk cont 06:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independent, but fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Hong Kong 01 is a web newspaper, using it as a citation for routine fact is not a problem, but for establishing the most strict "reliable source" requirement, i am not sure . Also the two articles were interview of the founder and no support of private museums by the government respectively. And it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage Matthew_hk tc 10:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, i would say almost every single Chinese cafe, noodle restaurant, etc. in Hong Kong, had news cutting on display in their shop front. They got even more attention when they are forced to close down due to not affordable rent by "Real Estate Hegemony" which fuels the tabloid journalism on how they found the shop. But end up they are all routine, trivial founding stories that looks the same, only differ in very specific detail. The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) was meant to be a bar for flooding such shops with routine coverage. Matthew_hk tc 10:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it is in fact notable is because it was NOT your average shop front; it was a small museum dedicated to the history of the Hong Kong Tramways. Also, the web newspaper links are interviews of the founder, but they are interviews regarding the museum specifically, and other aspects besides the closure are discussed. Of course, a web newspaper is indeed not as good as, say, a book on the topic, but this is not a featured article nomination; it's a discussion of whether the article meets the bare minimum criteria to not be deleted, and I feel that with the recent changes that you and I made, it passes. Jackdude101 talk cont 11:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All i could said interview did not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And from his mouth or his mum, the story of how he became a die hard fans and then founded a museum (or actually a for profit shop) is not notable. There is no independent review or article about his collection, or presumably not notable to have someone to write a serious review on it. Matthew_hk tc 22:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're repeating the same points, I'll repeat that it was a museum, as it had historical items on display, and almost every museum sells merchandise, so the related point you made is moot. It sounds like your grievances are related exclusively to the Mandarin language version of the article, because those sources you linked above are in the Mandarin version, but not the English version. The English one, however, has two independent articles (here: [1] and here: [2]) that talk about the museum at length. They are from the same publisher and present similar information, but having both is necessary because one mentions the September lease expiration date, but not the August closure date, and vice-versa. The presence of these third-party sources establishes notability, which makes the effort to have this article deleted dead-in-the-water. I should also bring up the following observation: through my interactions with people who seem to be from Hong Kong, or have some sort of real-life connection to it, they all seem to resent their own tourism industry, despite the fact that it's a major pillar of their economy. This translates into the absurd idea that any subjects here related to Hong Kong history and tourism should somehow be mutually exclusive. This is of course impossible, because there are many instances (such as this one) where those two areas overlap. My point is the nominator of this AfD appears to have a negative bias on the subject, and hence his opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HK 01 was discredited as reliable source by newspaper of Hong Kong and it seem you have COI or personal tie to the museum and/or tram instead, which complete ignoring all the points of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a place of advisement of a tiny shop with a gimmick of museum. Matthew_hk tc 01:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a survey [3] of the "truthfulness" of media, interviewing 907 individuals, HK 01 was ranked 4.87 out of 10 scores. At least Apple Daily that famous for tabloid journalism and paid reporting on shops, had a score of 5.18 while Oriental Daily 5.59, Sing Tao 5.99 Matthew_hk tc 01:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have never set foot in Hong Kong and have no ties whatsoever to the museum. Even if I did have a tie to the museum, why would I be motivated to edit an article about it given that it's no longer in business? Perhaps it is you that has a COI or some sort of personal grudge against the museum or the organization that ran it. Also, the only place where I see HK01 mentioned in that link is in the comments, and not the article itself. That's yet another point of yours that has been shot down. Yes, the museum was small, and yes, it was in a shopping mall, but that's irrelevant because museums are allowed to be small and in shopping malls. Given that your arguments are centered on those aspects, they are weak at best, and definitely not enough to support this deletion. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restating deletion rationale: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), no non-interview, non-primary, secondary reliable source for the guideline. None of any provided source pass Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary.
HK01 is unreliable secondary source with more than half content is interview, which interview of the founder itself is not independent from the museum. Matthew_hk tc 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted that wp:notability link six times so far; your chances of getting what you want are not going to increase the more you post it. Also, the idea that HK01 is unreliable is not substantiated and is only your personal opinion. Regardless, at best the decision for this AfD is going to be no consensus if it's only going to be you and me bickering back and forth. So, I will ping a few other editors (@ASDFGH:, @Citobun:, @Davidng913:) so we can get this resolved. All of those editors made an edit to the Hong Kong Tramways article within the past year. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, HK01 scoring (4.x) in that survey, which less than almost all traditional paper media/newspaper (Ming Pao that reporting the survey by an independent org, School of Journalism and Communication of CUHK, had a score of 6.x), only better than Communist owned Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po (which had very very few circulation), as well as other media reporting that they made hoax political news coverage, it was still reliable? And it still dodge of the criteria "Significant, Independent" Matthew_hk tc 02:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 02:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements: "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization". None of the "non-routine" article coverage of the "museum" on newspaper was free of interview and free from alternative advertising. Matthew_hk tc 03:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all. Everybody should be aware that sock-puppetry and conflict-of-interest is not germane to whether this place deserves a Wikipedia article or not. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just a supplement to his dodge to guideline, criteria and evidence. Matthew_hk tc 03:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's no dodging. I believe the HK01 sources are in fact valid. Furthermore, I would caution against domestic Chinese studies (within Hong Kong, as well) that grade Hong Kong news sites, given that the Chinese Communist Party tends to frown upon free speech, and such studies could have been done at their behest to discredit any organizations that have or could speak out against them. If you can supply a study created outside of Chinese-controlled territory that grades HK01, that would be more valuable. On a separate note, we haven't even discussed this other source in the English language article here: [4]. It's another interview of the museum's founder, but this one was done by HK Magazine, which at the time of its publication was a subsidiary of South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's newspaper of record. The museum is mentioned once at the top and at the bottom. That's not that much, but it's enough to confirm the museum's notability, and it's a little something extra to go along with the other sources. Jackdude101 talk cont 04:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The survey was carried by an independent depart of CUHK which in the past it had faced political pressure that the consequence was no one including head of CUHK can influence it at present. The survey may had bias due to sampling size (may be some people refuse to answer the survey, which this "refuse" may not be randomly distributed), but it was the most reliable survey in Hong Kong. For SCMP, all i could found that article is ANOTHER Interview which still fails the GNG and the specific companies and org guideline. Also, in my personal opinion, SCMP start to fail as this year promoting a nobody as the next Asian-American to be the next US President candidate. Since the acquisition by Alibaba Group in 2015, it seem a soft propaganda machine to me. Nevertheless, if you find any non-China politics article in SCMP, i would still consider them as reliable, as well as it still score 6.54 in that 2016 survey. But that article still did not fit the all four criteria Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary, which pass 2 to 3 criterion? Matthew_hk tc 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think three sources from three mainstream HK publishers over several years, even if the publications were motivated by active promotion on the museum's behalf, would push this over WP:GNG. Deryck C. 13:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See essay wp:ITSAMUSEUM which provides deep philosophical insights. I don't know where to draw the line for museums that are relatively small or relatively temporary, honestly, but I prefer to keep.--Doncram (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong_Kong_Trams_Station&oldid=863542719"