Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Garden (Shenyang)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Garden (Shenyang)

edit
Riverside Garden (Shenyang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is an article about one of many gated communities in China and this one is not more notable than any other one. The community mentioned is of a higher standard than many others, but this doesn't make it notable. Poeloq (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<A road like [[Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey? I think our differences lie mostly in believing Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia about important things versus believing Wikipedia to be the "sum of all knowledge". I see nothing wrong with articles about major roads that have houses, offices and shops. It is verifiable and useful. "Notable" is just shorthand for verifiable and useful, in my opinion. And the facts in our article on Riverside Garden are verifiable and useful. A foreigner being told of a meeting at Riverside Garden can now look it up and see what "Riverside Garden" is. We are better than Google. We make the internet not suck. What is the most useful thing we can do with regard to this article for a reader who types "Riverside Garden" into Wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vision for Wikipedia is nice, but it isn't intended that way. You might want to check Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, and other related areas of WP:NOT where it clearly states that we don't intend to be a guidebook, directory or a help in conducting business. That's the way it is. Poeloq (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. I think it plain that Wikipedia is meant to have articles on all named and verifiable communities of 1000 or more units. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we agree to disagree :) . Let's see what other editors have to say. Poeloq (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, everything that has a verifiable existence should have an article. WP:NOT is wrong. Remember, "policy" on Wikipedia is not prescriptive--we are not obligated to care what it says. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!') 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, you've just used one of the things listed over at WP:ATA, namely Wikipedia should be about everything. Also pointing out that policy can be ignored, is also not a valid argument in an AfD discussion. Poeloq (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's just my point. It is my position that Wikipedia SHOULD be about everything; thus, my argument is perfectly valid. And yes, policy can and should be ignored. All it is is a description of what has typically happened in certain situations in the past. It is not a set of rules that must be followed in the future. The choice of the word "policy" as the appellation was unfortunate, and it has confused many a well-meaning user. But, the fact of the matter is that on Wikipedia, policy is not prescriptive and there is no obligation to "follow" it simply because "it's policy". You do what's right, whether it accords with policy or not. So don't argue based on policy--argue based on what's right for the project. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the link I quoted? I know that policy can and should at times be ignored. However, in an AfD discussion there are certain things that need to be quoted and used to base a decission on, otherwise we could just abolish AfD all together - which I am sure you would favor. Poeloq (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it many times. It's irrelevant. All it is is a list some people put together that amounts to "I don't agree with these arguments, so I've decided you shouldn't use them." That's all it is. And I'm not talking about "ignoring policy"--because there is nothing to ignore in the first place! The word "policy" has a different meaning on Wikipedia than it does in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, actions follow policy: if they don't, then people should change their actions so they do follow policy. However, on Wikipedia, policy follows actions. If actions are not in line with "policy", then, then "policy" needs to be changed to reflect that fact. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- great points above. I feel it is right to keep this article. The place exists, the article's useful and helpful, can be improved to be more so, and why not? SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In what way is the article useful? And there are a lot of things that exist but don't facilitate an own article. BTW, don't be confused by the name: this is not a park or area of town. Poeloq (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a street directory. Whether we should have articles for every neighborhood in Newark (and Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey is about a neighborhood, not the eponymous street) is another question, best decided at another AfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generic subdivision; little better than spam or advertising. Gamaliel (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neighborhood, certainly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has not been demonstrated, despite efforts to find mentions in various listings and forum threads. --Stormie (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is a notable development in China - that one where the houses and towns imitate western-style architecture and layout. You would think you were in a suburb in London or Paris or the US, except it is for rich people in China instead. Can anyone remember that one? I've tried to find an article on it and failed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not pass the bar for neighborhoods. Likely fails WP:RS. Almost every neighborhood has news coverage but that does not mean that they are all notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1000 units - Tiny villages in UK/Ireland are deemed noteworthy. A larger community in a far off place (to me) must also be noteworthy. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources presented in the article are not reliable, and we need to see some reason why this development project is notable. We need this standard for gated communities / housing subdivisions, because there is a major potential for advertising abuse here. Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, if you have a problem with the sources given, the solution is not to delete but rather to find better sources. Second, as I have explained several times here, notability is irrelevant. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kurt, we all know your radical opinion on deletion and consensus. This is why your RfA failed back in 2005. Consesus in the communuty is that notability is relevant. Secondly, other/reliable sources on this subject are hard to find. I did a search in Chinese, however could only really find promotional information and press releases plus the odd rental offer. Poeloq (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Kurt, lack of adequate sourcing is a good reason to delete: see WP:DEL#REASON. If there is good reliable information out there, the article can stay. But none has been shown and it seems highly unlikely to. If you want to dispute that you're going to need to find some good sources. Mangojuicetalk 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Really, people. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corporal, that's not too useful. Do you mind elaborating on your opinion on why you think it should be deleted? Poeloq (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. It strikes me as utterly uninteresting and irrelevant to anyone who does not live within 100 yards of it, and lacks any source suggesting that it is any more interesting than the next community 100 yards in the other way. Its entry is largely defended on the grounds that the subject exists, and under that criterion I won't support it until the Wiki has an independently-authored article on my shoe. It is pretty much inconceivable that it could perform any role which would make an entry on it useful to a reader, researcher, or seeker of knowledge, and anyone who is curious about where it is - perhaps hankering for some root beer, or Tostitos - would be far better served by a map. Or, in the shorter version - really, people. Delete. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (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/Riverside_Garden_(Shenyang)&oldid=1142234325"