- 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. Missvain ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lai Chi Kok Road ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Road that does not meet WP:GNG. The article is basically WP:SYNTH as it talks about other things nearby that are notable. I thought Route 5 (Hong Kong) would be a redirect target, but was informed that this road is no longer part of Route 5. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – This is a primary distributor road with historical significance as one of the main roads connecting Kowloon to the new town at Sham Shui Po (in the 1920s), and later as a principal route to Tsuen Wan (1970s) prior to the construction of the West Kowloon Corridor and West Kowloon Highway. Although many Hong Kong streets and roads do not have very good articles at present, most of them are covered in a lot of local sources. The articles just need some work. I have expanded Lai Chi Kok Road and added reliable sources accordingly. Regards, Citobun ( talk) 00:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Coverage in local sources does not mean notability. I sure we can find
WP:ROUTINE coverage of construction, road paving projects, etc for just about any road. The sources you have provided are all routine.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @
Rusf10: The references are not routine coverage. They describe the progressive extension of the road (i.e. its creation). Which of the sources describe "construction, road paving projects, etc"? Please don't mischaracterise my contributions to the article.
Citobun (
talk)
00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Really? With titles such as "ARMY GIVES UP PART OF SHAMSHUIPO LAND: Opening Up Of Laichikok Road To Give Access To Cheungshawan"., "New Road To Ease Congestion", "New road section to open"., all of which come from the local newspaper. Sounds very routine to me.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @
Rusf10: The references are not routine coverage. They describe the progressive extension of the road (i.e. its creation). Which of the sources describe "construction, road paving projects, etc"? Please don't mischaracterise my contributions to the article.
Citobun (
talk)
00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Coverage in local sources does not mean notability. I sure we can find
WP:ROUTINE coverage of construction, road paving projects, etc for just about any road. The sources you have provided are all routine.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- These describe the extension and expansion of the road. Not routine events like road paving. Certainly I came across
WP:ROUTINE coverage but I didn't use any such sources.
Citobun (
talk)
01:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The extension of the road is routine. Local newspapers always cover these things.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, by definition of the word "routine" and the guideline you linked to, the extension of a major trunk road (as it was at the time) is certainly not routine. This is a significant road in Hong Kong and this deletion nomination is basically frivolous. And now you are mischaracterising the nature of references to
SCMP, a reliable source.
Rusf10, which of the sources covers a routine "road paving" project? That's what you wrote. Now you are moving the goalpost.
Citobun (
talk)
03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- First, I didn't say that the newspaper wasn't a reliable source, what I said was it is a local source which was routine coverage of local news stories. Second, there is no moving of the goal post because what I did say is that road construction (not just repaving) is routine. Find coverage of the road construction in multiple national or international publications and I will reconsider.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Rusf10, I completely do not care if you reconsider because you seem intent on mischaracterising sources. The article now has references to multiple reliable sources including the
Town Planning Board,
Urban Council, and the
South China Morning Post demonstrating the route's notability as a historic trunk route and present-day primary distributor road.
Citobun (
talk)
03:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not mischaracterizing sources, you don't understand our notability guidelines. You seem to think that because there's a source, it must be notable. To start with WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do you actually think the Town Planning Board and the Urban Council add to notability? How can the town planning board be an WP:INDEPENDENT source when the town owns the road?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Rusf10, I completely do not care if you reconsider because you seem intent on mischaracterising sources. The article now has references to multiple reliable sources including the
Town Planning Board,
Urban Council, and the
South China Morning Post demonstrating the route's notability as a historic trunk route and present-day primary distributor road.
Citobun (
talk)
03:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- First, I didn't say that the newspaper wasn't a reliable source, what I said was it is a local source which was routine coverage of local news stories. Second, there is no moving of the goal post because what I did say is that road construction (not just repaving) is routine. Find coverage of the road construction in multiple national or international publications and I will reconsider.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, by definition of the word "routine" and the guideline you linked to, the extension of a major trunk road (as it was at the time) is certainly not routine. This is a significant road in Hong Kong and this deletion nomination is basically frivolous. And now you are mischaracterising the nature of references to
SCMP, a reliable source.
Rusf10, which of the sources covers a routine "road paving" project? That's what you wrote. Now you are moving the goalpost.
Citobun (
talk)
03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The extension of the road is routine. Local newspapers always cover these things.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- These describe the extension and expansion of the road. Not routine events like road paving. Certainly I came across
WP:ROUTINE coverage but I didn't use any such sources.
Citobun (
talk)
01:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The content of the references establishes notability. The fact that the road is classified as a primary distributor road, as evidenced by the TPB reference, is a claim of notability. TPB and UrbCo are reliable sources. I don't know what "town" you are referring to. Nor do I know what you think a "national publication" is in the context of colonial Hong Kong. Citobun ( talk) 03:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as per Citobun's arguments. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- keep, a well-developed article about a significant and historical road. Lembit Staan ( talk)
- Keep The sources Citobun added to the article including:
- Ho, Pui-yin (2018). Making Hong Kong: A history of its urban development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 90–95. ISBN 9781788117944.
- Cheng, Po-hung; Toong, Po-ming (2003). "The Development of Sham Shui Po". A Century of Kowloon Roads and Streets. Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. p. 70. ISBN 9620422007.
- "ARMY GIVES UP PART OF SHAMSHUIPO LAND: Opening Up Of Laichikok Road To Give Access To Cheungshawan". South China Morning Post. 21 August 1959. p. 6.
- "New road section to open". South China Morning Post. 23 November 1987. p. 3.
- Keep per Citobun and Cunard. Deryck C. 16:09, 17 May 2021 (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. Missvain ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lai Chi Kok Road ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Road that does not meet WP:GNG. The article is basically WP:SYNTH as it talks about other things nearby that are notable. I thought Route 5 (Hong Kong) would be a redirect target, but was informed that this road is no longer part of Route 5. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – This is a primary distributor road with historical significance as one of the main roads connecting Kowloon to the new town at Sham Shui Po (in the 1920s), and later as a principal route to Tsuen Wan (1970s) prior to the construction of the West Kowloon Corridor and West Kowloon Highway. Although many Hong Kong streets and roads do not have very good articles at present, most of them are covered in a lot of local sources. The articles just need some work. I have expanded Lai Chi Kok Road and added reliable sources accordingly. Regards, Citobun ( talk) 00:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Coverage in local sources does not mean notability. I sure we can find
WP:ROUTINE coverage of construction, road paving projects, etc for just about any road. The sources you have provided are all routine.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @
Rusf10: The references are not routine coverage. They describe the progressive extension of the road (i.e. its creation). Which of the sources describe "construction, road paving projects, etc"? Please don't mischaracterise my contributions to the article.
Citobun (
talk)
00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Really? With titles such as "ARMY GIVES UP PART OF SHAMSHUIPO LAND: Opening Up Of Laichikok Road To Give Access To Cheungshawan"., "New Road To Ease Congestion", "New road section to open"., all of which come from the local newspaper. Sounds very routine to me.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @
Rusf10: The references are not routine coverage. They describe the progressive extension of the road (i.e. its creation). Which of the sources describe "construction, road paving projects, etc"? Please don't mischaracterise my contributions to the article.
Citobun (
talk)
00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Coverage in local sources does not mean notability. I sure we can find
WP:ROUTINE coverage of construction, road paving projects, etc for just about any road. The sources you have provided are all routine.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- These describe the extension and expansion of the road. Not routine events like road paving. Certainly I came across
WP:ROUTINE coverage but I didn't use any such sources.
Citobun (
talk)
01:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The extension of the road is routine. Local newspapers always cover these things.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, by definition of the word "routine" and the guideline you linked to, the extension of a major trunk road (as it was at the time) is certainly not routine. This is a significant road in Hong Kong and this deletion nomination is basically frivolous. And now you are mischaracterising the nature of references to
SCMP, a reliable source.
Rusf10, which of the sources covers a routine "road paving" project? That's what you wrote. Now you are moving the goalpost.
Citobun (
talk)
03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- First, I didn't say that the newspaper wasn't a reliable source, what I said was it is a local source which was routine coverage of local news stories. Second, there is no moving of the goal post because what I did say is that road construction (not just repaving) is routine. Find coverage of the road construction in multiple national or international publications and I will reconsider.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Rusf10, I completely do not care if you reconsider because you seem intent on mischaracterising sources. The article now has references to multiple reliable sources including the
Town Planning Board,
Urban Council, and the
South China Morning Post demonstrating the route's notability as a historic trunk route and present-day primary distributor road.
Citobun (
talk)
03:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not mischaracterizing sources, you don't understand our notability guidelines. You seem to think that because there's a source, it must be notable. To start with WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do you actually think the Town Planning Board and the Urban Council add to notability? How can the town planning board be an WP:INDEPENDENT source when the town owns the road?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Rusf10, I completely do not care if you reconsider because you seem intent on mischaracterising sources. The article now has references to multiple reliable sources including the
Town Planning Board,
Urban Council, and the
South China Morning Post demonstrating the route's notability as a historic trunk route and present-day primary distributor road.
Citobun (
talk)
03:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- First, I didn't say that the newspaper wasn't a reliable source, what I said was it is a local source which was routine coverage of local news stories. Second, there is no moving of the goal post because what I did say is that road construction (not just repaving) is routine. Find coverage of the road construction in multiple national or international publications and I will reconsider.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, by definition of the word "routine" and the guideline you linked to, the extension of a major trunk road (as it was at the time) is certainly not routine. This is a significant road in Hong Kong and this deletion nomination is basically frivolous. And now you are mischaracterising the nature of references to
SCMP, a reliable source.
Rusf10, which of the sources covers a routine "road paving" project? That's what you wrote. Now you are moving the goalpost.
Citobun (
talk)
03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The extension of the road is routine. Local newspapers always cover these things.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- These describe the extension and expansion of the road. Not routine events like road paving. Certainly I came across
WP:ROUTINE coverage but I didn't use any such sources.
Citobun (
talk)
01:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The content of the references establishes notability. The fact that the road is classified as a primary distributor road, as evidenced by the TPB reference, is a claim of notability. TPB and UrbCo are reliable sources. I don't know what "town" you are referring to. Nor do I know what you think a "national publication" is in the context of colonial Hong Kong. Citobun ( talk) 03:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as per Citobun's arguments. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- keep, a well-developed article about a significant and historical road. Lembit Staan ( talk)
- Keep The sources Citobun added to the article including:
- Ho, Pui-yin (2018). Making Hong Kong: A history of its urban development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 90–95. ISBN 9781788117944.
- Cheng, Po-hung; Toong, Po-ming (2003). "The Development of Sham Shui Po". A Century of Kowloon Roads and Streets. Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. p. 70. ISBN 9620422007.
- "ARMY GIVES UP PART OF SHAMSHUIPO LAND: Opening Up Of Laichikok Road To Give Access To Cheungshawan". South China Morning Post. 21 August 1959. p. 6.
- "New road section to open". South China Morning Post. 23 November 1987. p. 3.
- Keep per Citobun and Cunard. Deryck C. 16:09, 17 May 2021 (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.