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 Delete This is the sort of AfD that is going to draw complaints regardless of how it is closed. I suspect that is why it was left open so long after the date it was meant to be closed. I am taking this on and I am giving it the attention it deserves. I see that a lot of effort has been put into the debate and I will consider those arguments carefully. Participants are reminded that this is not a vote and arguments are to be compared to relevant policies and guidelines.

First off when considering arguments based in policy I see that there is about equal support for both keep and delete. The primary source of disagreement seems to be regarding if the sources meet the standard of notability so that I where I will focus.

The relevant notability guideline seems to be WP:GEOROAD, both sides seem to agree this is the standard which reads: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

As such the standard I am employing when looking at opinions on the sources is "multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.". Note that the standard has several elements:

As such the result of this AfD is Delete due to failing notability requirements. As always my talk page is open but it is not for rehashing the arguments in this AfD, but rather for discussing the closure itself. I fully expect about half of the participants to be unhappy about this outcome but that was going to happen no matter how I closed this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Overturned to No Consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 26 -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

MacDonnell Road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 22 closed as relist; I am implenting this relist outcome. Neutral. Stifle ( talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Hong Kong roads have populations of thousands, so they are much more significant than the average street in the world. There are a number of important places on this road. SO notability is provable. Relist seems a waste of time as no one whatsoever supported the delete in the original AFD. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

This is absurd, roads in Hong Kong are not automatically more notable than roads in the rest of the world. Notability is also not transferred from buildings on the street to the street itself. Notability has not been proven. And your opinion about the relist is irrelevant since it went through a deletion review (which you did not even bother to participate in) and the result was relist.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete- I am reaffirming by deletion vote and would like to add that the relevant guideline for this articleis WP:GEOROAD which says Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. So far the only sources found are either about buildings on the road (not the road itself) or routine local newspaper coverage of the local real estate market.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indication this is more than a generic road, without significant coverage about it specifically. The above comment is ridiculous, as of course any densely populated area will have scores of roads with many people and features in the vicinity, which do not bestow notability to every strip of asphalt between them. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is sufficient coverage about MacDonnell Road in this article in the Oriental Daily and this article in the Hong Kong Economic Times to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Oriental Daily article notes (from Google Translate):

  McDonald’s Road, Mid-Levels Central, which is only a few minutes’ drive away from the central business district, is one of the closest luxury estates in the Central District. Although most of the luxury homes along the street are stratified, the unit size and spacing options are diversified, except for suitable ones. In addition to the open-plan units of single nobles, there are also large mansions with a single-storey area of ​​about 4,500 square feet. Therefore, there are many celebrities and rich people. Even the family of Hong Kong's top richest Henderson (00012) Chairman Lee Shau Kee has lived on McDonald's Road for about 30 years.

  MacDonnell Road (MacDonnell Road) is adjacent to the bustling business district of the Central District, and is also close to the leisure hotspot Soho District (SOHO), making it an ideal residence for office workers in the Central District. The street is less than one kilometer in length. It is connected to Garden Road in the west and Kennedy Road in the east. It has a geographical advantage. Although the McDonald’s Road Association is reminiscent of an American fast food chain, it is actually irrelevant. Its name comes from the sixth Hong Kong Governor McDonald's (Richard Graves MacDonnell).

  There is also coverage in this article from Hong Kong Brand Museum, which says (from Google Translate): "There is a McDonald’s Road in Mid-Levels, but it has nothing to do with fast food brands. It is named in memory of Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, the sixth governor of Hong Kong. Before 1957, it was called "McDonald Road", and Hong Kong people would also translate the English name Donald into "Dang Slave", so some people would sometimes write "McDonald". According to James L. Watson, a former guest professor of anthropology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in his book, McDonald’s in Hong Kong considered using the word "slave" to avoid confusion with McDonald’s Road."

  Alternatively, this article could be merged to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Places named after him or his wife per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

  Cunard ( talk) 10:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

THis is all just routine coverage in the local newspaper about the local real estate market. Actually, I think sounds promotional too.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

This is not "routine coverage in the local newspaper about the local real estate market". Oriental Daily is a major Hong Kong newspaper, while the Hong Kong Economic Times is a major financial newspaper. These articles discuss MacDonnell Road's significance and history. A non-notable street would not have its significance and history discussed in major newspapers. I don't consider major newspapers' discussion of the road's history and significance to be promotional. Cunard ( talk) 04:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. WP:GEOROAD is not proscriptive. It says when roads are presumed to be notable, but not when they are not presumed to be notable. In this case, a notable road which meets WP:GNG and has at least one building on it (without an article as yet) which meets the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Nobody said it was proscriptive. I cited it because it is actually the applicable guideline (not GEOFEAT) and it means that roads like this must have very good sourcing to be considered notable as opposed to an Interstate Highway which gets auto-notability. Also, we do not transfer notability from one thing to another. (see WP:NOTINHERITED)-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I'll say it again, as you seem to have missed the point. WP:GEOROAD says when roads are presumed to be notable, but not when they are not presumed to be notable. So it is utterly irrelevant to this AfD. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I'll say it again, when something is not presumed to be notable, you must prove its notability. What part of that don't you understand? And then you tell me that GEOROAD is irrelevant, but somehow you think that GEOFEAT is relevant, even though it has nothing to do with roads.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Necrothesp ( talk · contribs), I think WP:GEOROAD is relevant to this AfD. WP:GEOROAD says, "... local roads ... may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Since MacDonnell Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it passes WP:GEOROAD so is notable. Cunard ( talk) 04:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. A search for "MacDonnell Road" in the database for past SCMP editions (on ProQuest, available via the HK Central Library if you do want to check) returns ~25000 results, of which ~19000 are ads or standalone photos. Many of the rest are notices indicating (e.g.) water rationing, let/sale, appointment of directors, etc.. There were 51 "front page articles" (actual quoting, not MOS:SCAREQUOTES), some of which document notable (in the general sense) events such as a ransacked flat (25/7/1950), a SPC student killed after jumping (19/10/1950), mudslides (17/8/1964), Princess Margaret visiting the St John Headquarters (7/3/1966) etc., but unfortunately I was unable to find an event that related specifically to the road. As per Rusf10, WP:NOTINHERITED. The reason I am not putting this forth as a "Delete" vote is that news coverage does not establish notability, nor does a lack of it establish non-notability; there may well be sources out there of which I am not aware. I hope this assists anyone who decides to join the AfD. My personal opinion is that we take Cunard's alternative action, i.e. merge under Richard Graves MacDonnell. (This is my first AfD, let me know if I'm doing anything wrong!) IndentFirstParagraph ( talk) 00:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Governor of Hong Kong, which reflect his history there. 09:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep (just) per User:Necrothesp and User:Cunard but I'd not disagree with Merge / Redirect to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Places named after him or his wife. Ingratis ( talk) 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm convinced by Cunard's further contribution above. Ingratis ( talk) 13:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as above it appears coverage has been found NemesisAT ( talk) 22:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Cunard's alternate proposal - I'm not enthralled by the coverage presented above. Cunard contends that it isn't simply local real-estate coverage, as the history of the road is discussed as well, but in all honesty it still reads to me like normal real-estate coverage with a few historical blurbs incorporated to make the subject interesting. None of it seems to go much further than historical fun facts, unless I'm missing something. Still worth mentioning, but maybe just not necessitating an entire article. / Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 22:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cunard. Passes WP:SIGCOV. A merge proposal can always be made after this AFD closes on the article’s talk page. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge The coverage, to me, either simply describes real estate on the road or doesn't really say anything more than the obvious apart from linking its name to the person it was named after, i.e. neither actually really discuss the street's significance. Based on the sources found and those currently available in the article, we can't do much more than make basic descriptions of the street and then say who it's named after. I'm not convinced there's a better ATD to deletion here either, since there are other MacDonnell Roads (though surprisingly fewer than I would have thought), though I have no problem with including this on the article of the person who the street was named after. SportingFlyer T· C 12:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Necrothesp the usual "presumed notable" formulation works like this with regard to SNGs: If the subject doesn't meet GNG, it's only shot at notability is meeting the pertinent SNG criteria, and if it does, then it is presumed notable, but it may still be concluded (through consensus) that it is not notable, despite the presumption, because said presumptions are not irrebuttable presumptions (contrast conclusive presumption with rebuttable presumption). If the subject meets neither GNG or SNG to qualify for the presumption of notability, it means that there is nothing to base on that it is notable, and the intended conclusion is that it is non-notable. Since this subject doesn't meet GNG, and doesn't meet the relevant SNG, as explained by other advocates of deletion it is non-notable. Like Rusf10, I find the Oriental Daily text to be mere promotional padding. It's on a page that advertises real estate. The heading translates as "Luxury House Guide: McDonald's Road has many luxury houses to choose from". "McDonald’s/McDonald road" content from the museum source is a pretty pointless factoid. If these are such excellent finds, we should be able to incorporate some of the information into the article, right? But would any of it make the article better? (No.) — Alalch Emis ( talk)
• Keep. An old street of Hong Kong, with a long history. It is one of the streets that contains the most 999-year leases in Hong Kong, a rare form of land lease in the territory. Also, I have added content and references. Definitely worth its own article: more relevant history and information can certainly be found. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 07:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• The Hong Kong Gazette pdfs appear to be routine mentions in government documents for the sale of land lots and the construction of a bridge, neither discuss the road significantly and unfortunately do not meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 11:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC) reply

My point is about the 999-year leases in Hong Kong, not about the documents which report them. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 05:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

But the documents which report them, as a whole, don't give us enough significant coverage to write an article on without delving into WP:OR. I don't care about the 999-year leases, that has nothing to do with being wiki-notable. It doesn't help that it's now been ref-bombed with WP:OR from government surveyor contracts and the like. SportingFlyer T· C 20:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Whether you care or not about the 999-year leases is your personal choice. They happen to be uncommon and represent a very special type of lease in Hong Kong. I am confident that scholarly analysis of this type of lease exist, and explain why they are important. Hopefully some other people will care about improving the relevant articles and look for that. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

This article isn't about those leases, though, which might be worth their own article - it's about a road, and in spite of the 26 references in the article, not only are most primary references to historical Hong Kong documents (and therefore original research), there's not a single one that actually demonstrates significant secondary coverage of the road. SportingFlyer T· C 21:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Glad that you had a look at the article and noticed that it has improved substantially. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 05:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately it still is not sourced well enough for our notability guidelines. The malaria note considered an excellent find just lists the name of the road in parentheses, for instance. SportingFlyer T· C 08:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

May I suggest that you actually read the article and go through the refs. Your statement "not only are most primary references" is inaccurate. Positive suggestions/ contributions would also be useful. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 11:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Alright, here we go. 27 sources and, excepting the one I cannot access, not a single one passes GNG:

1. This book is a directory of places in Hong Kong and the things named after them. It includes a total of two sentences about the road, the second one only noting that it "may be misspelled" and some information about MacDonnell the person, the line about developing Victoria Peak is a near copyvio. Unfortunately, it may be the best source.

2. Hong Kong Government Gazette: A primary directory which lists 20-30 streets and their new names, not SIGCOV

3. For some strange rason, the early planners of Kowloon had duplicated a number of streets, among them Robinson, Macdonnell, and Chater Roads. is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.

4. Under "Roads, Streets and Public Offices in Hongkong", for example, a reader would have been puzzled to find, right next to Bowen Road and Kennedy Road, a certain "Mac Donald Road", presumably in error for MacDonnell Road. is the extent of the coverage - clearly not SIGCOV.

5. adopting a version of the three-character phrase used to represent a well-known local street, MacDonnell Road. is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.

6. Hong Kong Government Gazette: Primary, just a list of works carried out by the surveyor in 1891, neither secondary nor SIGCOV

7. A report from the Hong Kong director of public works from 1892: neither secondary nor SIGCOV

8. A report from the Hong Kong director of public works from 1899: neither secondary nor SIGCOV

9. A contract in the government gazette about the sale of the lot on the road, only mentions the name of the road, not SIGCOV

10. A contract in the government gazette about the sale of the lot on the road, only mentions the name of the road, not SIGCOV

11. Does not mention the road at all

12. Only includes the name of the road in parentheses, not SIGCOV

13. A report on malaria in which the name of the road is asked in a question as to the location of where malaria broke out, primary, not SIGCOV

14. ...had encroached only as far as Macdonnell Road, a safe distance from "The Peak." Between Macdonnell and May roads... is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.

15. Only mentioned in a single sentence which just mentions the location of the Punjabi HQs. Not SIGCOV.

16. Nothing more than an address for an ambulance company

17. An undergraduate thesis, typically disregarded for notability reasons

18. More PRIMARY government documents (any road in Hong Kong would be discussed here, does not show notability)

19. More PRIMARY government documents (any road in Hong Kong would be discussed here, does not show notability)

20. About a building on the road, not the road itself

21. About historic buildings, not the road itself

22. About a building on the road, not the road itself

23. This is a review of planning decisions in Hong Kong and only references the street because there were two cases regarding buildings on that street. However, it references many different streets in Hong Kong and doesn't demonstrate notability.

24. ...who lived on MacDonnell Road. is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.

25. (I can't actually find this source)

26. Another undergraduate thesis

27. A final undergraduate thesis. SportingFlyer T· C 11:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I endorse this overview of sources as well-founded and neutral. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 16:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The statement "not a single one [source] passes GNG" is inadequate: GNG applies to subjects, not to sources. Regarding the importance of the texts used as references, the book by James Watson for instance, is an instance of a landmark study in anthropology. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

There's nothing unreliable about that book, and I am not implying there is; I believe that maps to #5 above. When I say "not a single one passes GNG," I mean that we need at least a couple reliable, secondary, independent sources which significantly cover the road in order to show notability, and none of the sources in the article currently do that. It does not matter if a landmark study mentions the street, that source doesn't count towards WP:GNG unless it properly covers the topic. SportingFlyer T· C 17:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

For context, here is a longer version of the text explaining how the McDonald's name was transliterated into Chinese. Excerpted from James Watson's book: Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 17:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

"The transliteration process was a delicate one, given the long history of disasters attending the rendition of foreign names in Chinese. Mr. Ng decided to capture the sound of "McDonald's," in three homophonic characters, rather than create a name that would convey meaning-thus making the company appear to be a Chinese enterprise. Many local people reacted badly when Kentucky Fried Chicken first entered the Hong Kong market and chose a Chinese name that meant, literally, "Hometown Chicken." "Kentucky is certainly not my hometown," one longtime resident exclaimed. (KFC later dropped this name and began using a transliterated title based on sound rather than literal meaning.) Hong Kong McDonald's hoped to avoid confusion by adopting a version of the three-character phrase used to represent a well-known local street, MacDonnell Road." (emphasis added)

To me, the statement of "not a single one /source/ passes GNG" is an immediately understandable elliptical rendering of "not a single one /source/ meets the standard of the kind of coverage that is required under GNG". — Alalch Emis ( talk) 17:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

To me, that's a textbook WP:TRIVIAL mention of the road. SportingFlyer T· C 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

As an old saying goes: "You can't make a pie out of crabapples!" — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I suggest that you keep the discussion on topic. Thank you. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 20:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I'd just like to clarify that I thought the malaria anecdote was an 'excellent find' since the BMJ wouldn't be the first source that comes to mind for finding information on Hong Kong roads, and I found the factoid rather interesting. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, I agree that it falls quite a ways short of 'excellent'. Risking going off topic here, but on second thought malaria was endemic in Hong Kong until the 1960s so perhaps it isn't that much of a surprise that a residential road through a mountainside would be a ripe breeding ground for mosquitos. IndentFirstParagraph ( talk) 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, just. I think Underwaterbuffalo's contributions just about tips the article into notable territory. I base this opinion on the addition of sources describing the construction of the road, McDonald's' reference to the road when choosing its localised name, and the BMJ note (excellent find!) on the road having been a malaria-infested area. However, I'm not hopeful that this article will grow any further than a stub — I think much of the recently-added content is unfortunately, with respect, tangential and superfluous. Nevertheless, if WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:NOTINHERITED were taken strictly, we would have very few road-related articles indeed, hence my vote for retention. IndentFirstParagraph ( talk) 15:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Sigcov in reliable secondary sources hasn't been demonstrated, as basically admitted by the reluctant keep voter above. I've also seen an WP:ITSOLD argument here. Mundane facts like a malaria outbreak would belong in an article if its subject were notable, but do not themselves establish notability. Avilich ( talk) 14:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note that SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources has been demonstrated by Cunard. These are all Chinese language sources. Note that no Chinese language source has been used to write the article thus far, and that no Chinese language source (including the ones listed by Cunard) has been used as a reference. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 08:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Cunard's sources aren't great either. That's been established. If there are additional sources which discuss the road significantly and aren't real estate blurbs, that would be helpful. SportingFlyer T· C 10:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is an excellent example of the kind of street that is notable. Most major streets or streets of special interest in any laerge city will be notable . We can interpret significant coverage to meet the situation--the material in the article shows the importance. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 23 June 2021 (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.