- 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. The nature of "substantial" coverage is inherently a subjective question, but there seems to be a consensus (if not a unanimous one) that the provided sources are good enough in this case. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Austin Road ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "at least some substantial coverage found, doesn't belong at prod". However, not additional references or links to said 'substantial coverage' have been added thus the notability issue remains. Rincewind42 ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Substantial coverage is cited in the article, although the nominator evidently disagrees that it's substantial coverage. This is one of a large number of cookie-cutter nominations intent on wiping out the existing comprehensive coverage of the streets of Hong Kong. I don't think these deletions would result in an improvement to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't necessarily object to thoughtful, substantive mergers of these street articles into one or more collective articles in keeping with the teachings of WP:PRESERVE; wholesale deletion is not consistent with my conception of our editing policies and the values that explain why this project exists. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- One editor created a large number of cookie cutter articles on Hong Kong streets. Almost all the articles I have nominated were created by the same editor in a short space of time. There seems to have been an effort to create a directory articles about every street in HK irrespective or notability. They contain the same reference to a tourist guidebook or no reference at all. The reference only proves the existence of the road not the notability. The article doesn't even mention why the road is notable. Just because it is a large road does not mean it is notable. Most of the information within these articles is original research rather than based on sources.
- In contrast to the creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated but before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. Look in my contributions log and you'll see these nominations are a trivial section.
- Wikipedia has a sister project called WikiVoyage to which I also contribute. All these road articles would make an excellent addition to that site. While Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook or directory, WikiVoyage is. If you want to preserve these article, copy them over to there. Rincewind42 ( talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note 1: I seriously doubt that the information of this article would be suited for Wikivoyage. Nevertheless, if you think it is, as your introductory note unclearly suggests, I would encourage you to move it there, rather than only requesting a deletion here. You say that you are a contributor to Wikivoyage, so I would very much appreciate if you made the effort to transfer the content there rather than asking whoever is reading your mass nominations to do it.
- Note 2: "if the article can be improved then it will be" => but you haven't improved ANY of the 34 articles that you have PRODed or/and AfDed. Wasn't there anything to be improved there?
- Note 3: "The article history is checked" => so what? This article (Austin Road) has been created 9 years ago. It had 63 edits. And suddenly you come and say "I want this article erased. NOW". Same thing for the other 33 articles. Is it urgent to delete them? Does it make Wikipedia a better place? Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Besides the very in-depth source indicated by Arxiloxos [1], there's also more I've found in just a few seconds. [2] Yes, this nom has lately been making several unhelpful AfDs of almost every Hong Kong street article they come across when time and effort would be better served improving existing articles. -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please stick to the subject of the article without making comments about other editors. This is a exaggeration, "almost every Hong Kong street article they come across." There are several similar AfDs because several similar non-notable articles were created in bulk. The number of similar AfDs does not have any bearing on whither this article should be kept. The second reference you linked is about John Gardiner Austin, whom the road is named after. It only proves that the road exists it doesn't evidence the road's notability.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's the point. How do you know all of these "similar non-notable articles" that "were created in bulk" are non-notable? Just as they "were created in bulk" you AfD'd all of them in bulk. Your creation of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apliu Street is another obvious example of that.--
Oakshade (
talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I hate repeating myself but it seems I have to. In contrast to the article creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated because the reason for the nominations are identical. However, before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I didn't just nominate all the Hong Kong road articles in bulk. I have spent over a week going through each one by one. It has taken a great deal of my time to clean up someone else's mess. If you want to improve the article, and can do so, the please do that. I would like noting better than a good quality article on an interesting topic. However, your issue here seems to be nothing to do with the article but rather the number of AfDs. The number of AfD and the discussions on those other AfD has no bearing on the notability of this article.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 06:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- "someone else's mess" is certainly a very personal opinion. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I hate repeating myself but it seems I have to. In contrast to the article creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated because the reason for the nominations are identical. However, before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I didn't just nominate all the Hong Kong road articles in bulk. I have spent over a week going through each one by one. It has taken a great deal of my time to clean up someone else's mess. If you want to improve the article, and can do so, the please do that. I would like noting better than a good quality article on an interesting topic. However, your issue here seems to be nothing to do with the article but rather the number of AfDs. The number of AfD and the discussions on those other AfD has no bearing on the notability of this article.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 06:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's the point. How do you know all of these "similar non-notable articles" that "were created in bulk" are non-notable? Just as they "were created in bulk" you AfD'd all of them in bulk. Your creation of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apliu Street is another obvious example of that.--
Oakshade (
talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please stick to the subject of the article without making comments about other editors. This is a exaggeration, "almost every Hong Kong street article they come across." There are several similar AfDs because several similar non-notable articles were created in bulk. The number of similar AfDs does not have any bearing on whither this article should be kept. The second reference you linked is about John Gardiner Austin, whom the road is named after. It only proves that the road exists it doesn't evidence the road's notability.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of roads and streets in Hong Kong. Arxiloxos' reference is the same one cited as a reason to keep Jordan Road, Hong Kong. To recap, it's a guidebook and although it may have a chapter entitled "Austin Road", the coverage therein is about surrounding buildings and features, which may or may not be notable in their own right. Notability is not inherited such that a road being the location of a notable feature does not make the road itself notable. The "in-depth" source cited by Oakshade contains exactly 20 words (excluding Chinese characters) on Austin Road that do nothing more than describe its route, hardly earth-shattering and readily available elsewhere other than Wikipedia (i.e. Wikitravel or Wikivoyage). Furthermore, the fact that the road is named after John Gardiner Austin contributes to his notability, not the other way around. In summary, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, this road is non-notable and lacks the required significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant its own article. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The argument to delete because
John Gardiner Austin doesn't contribute to this road's notability is a
straw man as nobody here is claiming he does. The multi-page chapter on this topic is all encompassing of this road and that it goes into all the features on it is all the more reason of its notability per that source. --
Oakshade (
talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all,
John Gardiner Austin is the lead topic in the cited source. Everything else is ancillary.
Philg88 ♦
talk 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction of the multi-page chapter about this topic explaining it was named after
John Gardiner Austin is not a reason to delete this article. It's in fact more reason to keep it as the source is going into the history of this topic. Nobody here is stating just because the street is named after him makes the street notable. --
Oakshade (
talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have no desire to see the article deleted, which is why my !vote is to redirect it to a more suitable location. Geographic and other adjunct travel details belong in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here. Who the road is named after and other relevant historical details can be covered in a single paragraph in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Philg88 ♦ talk 20:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction of the multi-page chapter about this topic explaining it was named after
John Gardiner Austin is not a reason to delete this article. It's in fact more reason to keep it as the source is going into the history of this topic. Nobody here is stating just because the street is named after him makes the street notable. --
Oakshade (
talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all,
John Gardiner Austin is the lead topic in the cited source. Everything else is ancillary.
Philg88 ♦
talk 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The argument to delete because
John Gardiner Austin doesn't contribute to this road's notability is a
straw man as nobody here is claiming he does. The multi-page chapter on this topic is all encompassing of this road and that it goes into all the features on it is all the more reason of its notability per that source. --
Oakshade (
talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:07, 7 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.
- 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. The nature of "substantial" coverage is inherently a subjective question, but there seems to be a consensus (if not a unanimous one) that the provided sources are good enough in this case. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Austin Road ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "at least some substantial coverage found, doesn't belong at prod". However, not additional references or links to said 'substantial coverage' have been added thus the notability issue remains. Rincewind42 ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Substantial coverage is cited in the article, although the nominator evidently disagrees that it's substantial coverage. This is one of a large number of cookie-cutter nominations intent on wiping out the existing comprehensive coverage of the streets of Hong Kong. I don't think these deletions would result in an improvement to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't necessarily object to thoughtful, substantive mergers of these street articles into one or more collective articles in keeping with the teachings of WP:PRESERVE; wholesale deletion is not consistent with my conception of our editing policies and the values that explain why this project exists. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- One editor created a large number of cookie cutter articles on Hong Kong streets. Almost all the articles I have nominated were created by the same editor in a short space of time. There seems to have been an effort to create a directory articles about every street in HK irrespective or notability. They contain the same reference to a tourist guidebook or no reference at all. The reference only proves the existence of the road not the notability. The article doesn't even mention why the road is notable. Just because it is a large road does not mean it is notable. Most of the information within these articles is original research rather than based on sources.
- In contrast to the creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated but before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. Look in my contributions log and you'll see these nominations are a trivial section.
- Wikipedia has a sister project called WikiVoyage to which I also contribute. All these road articles would make an excellent addition to that site. While Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook or directory, WikiVoyage is. If you want to preserve these article, copy them over to there. Rincewind42 ( talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note 1: I seriously doubt that the information of this article would be suited for Wikivoyage. Nevertheless, if you think it is, as your introductory note unclearly suggests, I would encourage you to move it there, rather than only requesting a deletion here. You say that you are a contributor to Wikivoyage, so I would very much appreciate if you made the effort to transfer the content there rather than asking whoever is reading your mass nominations to do it.
- Note 2: "if the article can be improved then it will be" => but you haven't improved ANY of the 34 articles that you have PRODed or/and AfDed. Wasn't there anything to be improved there?
- Note 3: "The article history is checked" => so what? This article (Austin Road) has been created 9 years ago. It had 63 edits. And suddenly you come and say "I want this article erased. NOW". Same thing for the other 33 articles. Is it urgent to delete them? Does it make Wikipedia a better place? Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Besides the very in-depth source indicated by Arxiloxos [1], there's also more I've found in just a few seconds. [2] Yes, this nom has lately been making several unhelpful AfDs of almost every Hong Kong street article they come across when time and effort would be better served improving existing articles. -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please stick to the subject of the article without making comments about other editors. This is a exaggeration, "almost every Hong Kong street article they come across." There are several similar AfDs because several similar non-notable articles were created in bulk. The number of similar AfDs does not have any bearing on whither this article should be kept. The second reference you linked is about John Gardiner Austin, whom the road is named after. It only proves that the road exists it doesn't evidence the road's notability.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's the point. How do you know all of these "similar non-notable articles" that "were created in bulk" are non-notable? Just as they "were created in bulk" you AfD'd all of them in bulk. Your creation of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apliu Street is another obvious example of that.--
Oakshade (
talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I hate repeating myself but it seems I have to. In contrast to the article creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated because the reason for the nominations are identical. However, before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I didn't just nominate all the Hong Kong road articles in bulk. I have spent over a week going through each one by one. It has taken a great deal of my time to clean up someone else's mess. If you want to improve the article, and can do so, the please do that. I would like noting better than a good quality article on an interesting topic. However, your issue here seems to be nothing to do with the article but rather the number of AfDs. The number of AfD and the discussions on those other AfD has no bearing on the notability of this article.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 06:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- "someone else's mess" is certainly a very personal opinion. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I hate repeating myself but it seems I have to. In contrast to the article creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated because the reason for the nominations are identical. However, before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I didn't just nominate all the Hong Kong road articles in bulk. I have spent over a week going through each one by one. It has taken a great deal of my time to clean up someone else's mess. If you want to improve the article, and can do so, the please do that. I would like noting better than a good quality article on an interesting topic. However, your issue here seems to be nothing to do with the article but rather the number of AfDs. The number of AfD and the discussions on those other AfD has no bearing on the notability of this article.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 06:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's the point. How do you know all of these "similar non-notable articles" that "were created in bulk" are non-notable? Just as they "were created in bulk" you AfD'd all of them in bulk. Your creation of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apliu Street is another obvious example of that.--
Oakshade (
talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please stick to the subject of the article without making comments about other editors. This is a exaggeration, "almost every Hong Kong street article they come across." There are several similar AfDs because several similar non-notable articles were created in bulk. The number of similar AfDs does not have any bearing on whither this article should be kept. The second reference you linked is about John Gardiner Austin, whom the road is named after. It only proves that the road exists it doesn't evidence the road's notability.
Rincewind42 (
talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of roads and streets in Hong Kong. Arxiloxos' reference is the same one cited as a reason to keep Jordan Road, Hong Kong. To recap, it's a guidebook and although it may have a chapter entitled "Austin Road", the coverage therein is about surrounding buildings and features, which may or may not be notable in their own right. Notability is not inherited such that a road being the location of a notable feature does not make the road itself notable. The "in-depth" source cited by Oakshade contains exactly 20 words (excluding Chinese characters) on Austin Road that do nothing more than describe its route, hardly earth-shattering and readily available elsewhere other than Wikipedia (i.e. Wikitravel or Wikivoyage). Furthermore, the fact that the road is named after John Gardiner Austin contributes to his notability, not the other way around. In summary, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, this road is non-notable and lacks the required significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant its own article. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The argument to delete because
John Gardiner Austin doesn't contribute to this road's notability is a
straw man as nobody here is claiming he does. The multi-page chapter on this topic is all encompassing of this road and that it goes into all the features on it is all the more reason of its notability per that source. --
Oakshade (
talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all,
John Gardiner Austin is the lead topic in the cited source. Everything else is ancillary.
Philg88 ♦
talk 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction of the multi-page chapter about this topic explaining it was named after
John Gardiner Austin is not a reason to delete this article. It's in fact more reason to keep it as the source is going into the history of this topic. Nobody here is stating just because the street is named after him makes the street notable. --
Oakshade (
talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have no desire to see the article deleted, which is why my !vote is to redirect it to a more suitable location. Geographic and other adjunct travel details belong in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here. Who the road is named after and other relevant historical details can be covered in a single paragraph in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Philg88 ♦ talk 20:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction of the multi-page chapter about this topic explaining it was named after
John Gardiner Austin is not a reason to delete this article. It's in fact more reason to keep it as the source is going into the history of this topic. Nobody here is stating just because the street is named after him makes the street notable. --
Oakshade (
talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all,
John Gardiner Austin is the lead topic in the cited source. Everything else is ancillary.
Philg88 ♦
talk 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The argument to delete because
John Gardiner Austin doesn't contribute to this road's notability is a
straw man as nobody here is claiming he does. The multi-page chapter on this topic is all encompassing of this road and that it goes into all the features on it is all the more reason of its notability per that source. --
Oakshade (
talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:07, 7 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.