Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial Heights

:{{la|Celestial Heights}} ([{{fullurl:Celestial Heights|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial Heights}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I deleted this after its prod expired but a user has since contested its deletion. Prod rationale was "lack of notability. This is just an appartmentblock like any other. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Only usefull for a Hong Kong real estate site". No opinion from me. Flowerparty^☀ 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability aside from being expensive. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - It has received very significant coverage by The Standard [http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=1&art_id=65702&sid=18892055&con_type=1][http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=1&art_id=65973&sid=18985022&con_type=1][http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=2&art_id=66269&sid=19047000&con_type=1&d_str=20080523&fc=8], thus easily passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Even the [http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200811/14/P200811140161.htm press release] by the Government of Hong Kong is valid as its independent of the subject and in-depth.--Oakshade (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into no more than two paragraphs at Ho Man Tin as it is not notable outside the area it is in. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:*An opinion of something being "not notable outside the area it is in" is not criteria for deletion. Wikipedia has notability guidelines which stipulate that topics are presumed notable if they have had significant coverage by secondary sources, like this topic has. There's no "local popularity doesn't count" clause. In this case, the "local" means the 7 million populated Hong Kong. --Oakshade (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:**Note that I am proposing a merge not a delete. See WP:LOCAL - "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::*I'm familiar with the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:LOCAL. There are enough sources available to write a comprehensive article. The article you're suggesting to merge to is about the neighborhood and this is about a housing estate. Information specifically about the housing estate like ownership, construction and property values would be extranious and inappropriate in the Ho Man Tin article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::**But the housing estate is part of the neighbourhood, and I disagree that encyclopaedic information about the ownership, construction and property values would be inappropriate on the neighbourhood article. If it feels like the information is getting excessive then (imo) it is probable that it isn't encyclopaedic information. To deserve their own article, housing estates must be more notable than than any other similar housing estate anywhere in the world, and neither having the (second) highest property values in the region nor anything else I have seen about this development makes it any more notable than the housing estates with the (second) highest property values in France, Madrid, Taipei, New York, São Palo, etc, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::::*Wikipedia editors are not to judge what topics are "more notable and any other similar" topic. We go be what reliable sources have decided to write about them. That's the core principle behind WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, reliable sources have deemed this housing estate notable enough to write about as they don't write about every one.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::::**Local reliable sources always write about things that are notable in their local area. There is coverage in multiple reliable sources about a large (comparatively) new housing estate in the village I live in. That does not make it notable, enough for it's own article on Wikipedia. Despite it being the largest single housing estate and largest single development since at least the mid 1980s, possibly since before the second world war, it doesn't even get a mention in the article for the village. Encyclopaedic notability is different to newsworthyness and cannot be determined simply by a coverage in local reliable sources. While it is true that things that do not get covered in reliable sources are not notable, not everything that is covered is notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::*I've seen this "local sources don't count" argument time and time again and it never holds water. WP:NOTABILITY does not and has never "banned" local sources as evidence of notability. And considering Hong Kong is a major world city is further evidence of its notability as sources have chosen to write specifically about this housing estate in a place of literally thousands. --Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::*My point is not that "local sources don't count", they do. My point is that you need more than just local sources to indicate notability for the purposes of an international, general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::*Again, WP:NOTABILITY has no such "you need more than just local sources" rule. If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY, you need to make your case on its talk page, not try to change it through a specific AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. I read the links in the article and provided by Oakshade above, and they are just the fluff you find in the business section of every newspaper. They confirm it exists, is big, and cost a lot of money (but none of the sources say "one of biggest" or "one of most expensive" or similar wording to indicate notability. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am the author of the article. What I concern is not the deletion of certain Hong Kong property articles, but the view of point for the reservation of this kind of article. Some of the editors and administrators delete the articles just because they don't know the article and try to find some excuses to delete it.
• Someone said Hong Kong building articles in Wikipedia are promoting the sales of the property developers. How do the editors make a building article without telling the location, the developers and the foundation year? If you think these information can promote the sales of property developers, I think it is a joke. Then all articles involving private housing estates can be deleted, because they are de facto advertisements! For Johnuniq's deletion reason, did he/she find the article saying "one of biggest" or "one of most expensive"? What expensive is its land sale. The source can show the facts. What I make the article of Celestial Heights is based on the following reasons.
• It is one of a recent private housing estate in Ho Man Tin, a high-class and middle-class residential area in Hong Kong.
• Its land sale is the second highest (the sources can support the truth) in Hong Kong history. An article of Island Resort also exists due to this reason, I think.
• It has Chinese version article and photos to support the existance of the building. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Oakshade (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment User:Ricky@36 posted on my talk page: "You said there are no sources to support its land sales is second highest in Hong Kong history. But did you read the source of http://www.robroad.com/data/2006/0719/article_71129_1.htm ? It said "Cheung Kong Holdings to 9.42 billion won huge price "Ho Man Tin plots." This is the highest since 1997, the price of single plots." This shows it is a fact with reliable source. If you don't know too much on Hong Kong buildings, you'd better understand it."

::My response: I had read the article you mention before commenting here. Since it is not a good translation to English, it is a little hard for me to be sure what it is saying. I don't know a great deal about Hong Kong, but I recall hearing reports (over many years) that real estate prices are booming, and each year seems to set another record. I don't understand if the article above is saying any more than that, which I believe it would need to do to establish notability. It may be the case that this building is somehow notable; please just say what it is. I see that in another comment above you have added that its land value is the second highest in Hong Kong; that would contribute towards its notability but is there nothing more? You don't have to make a perfect article right now (or ever), but can you can give an indication as to how the article might develop? What more might be said? Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Comment You said "I don't know a great deal about Hong Kong, but I recall hearing reports (over many years) that real estate prices are booming, and each year seems to set another record." I can definitely tell you that the property price may not reach at higher record even though the economic is getting better. In 1997 and 1998, there was a bubble in the Hong Kong property market. Owenrs who bought the flats that time still suffers from losses even at the time when Hang Seng Index rose above 30000 points at 2007. It is not easy to break the record of the land sale in future few years. 07:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is a fine and notable in and of itself with notability shown by sources. This not a WP:CORP, other than the fact that all development in Hong Kong is land-leased, planned, developed, and managed corporately. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep Notable property development as demonstrated by newspaper articles cited and hundreds more available on Google News [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22%E5%8D%8A%E5%B1%B1%E5%A3%B9%E8%99%9F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives]. "just an appartmentblock like any other" is not a proper deletion rationale: notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not personal judgements of uniqueness or lack thereof. cab (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (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.