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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator has requested to withdraw the nomination, and none of the comments here have advocated for deletion or redirection of the page.
As far as I know, there is no such term as "Hong Kong Foundation Day", and Google isn't turning anything up. The article appears to be WP:OR. It cites this page which contains an extremely minimal use of the term by a publication that I would characterise as blog-like and not so authoritative. The bulk of the article constitutes tangential material about the history of Hong Kong and etymology of Chinese words. I propose deletion unless genuine use of this term in reliable secondary sources can be established. Citobun (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You will need to extent your WP:BEFORE search for Hong Kong Day or Festival of Hong Kong, not only to the article title. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not turning up anything relevant for those. The results for "Hong Kong Day" are mainly about the Maxim's-owned eatery of that name. "Festival of Hong Kong" was the name of a recurring event back in the 1970s, but that too is unrelated. Citobun (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nomination states that the title "Hong Kong Foundation Day" is not appropriate since the only source mentioning the name is [1] which is considered to be unreliable. but I don't think it's a problem since there are rather some sources for 香港開埠日 or 香港開埠 in Chinese and this might just be a translation. The "Etymology" section could be shortened a bit but the term "開埠日" is considered to be quite special so some words should be needed to explain that. "Activities" section is definitely appropriate and supported by various reliable sources. Sun8908Talk 11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The top Google result for "香港開埠日", which is the subject of this article, is the Cantonese Wikipedia article created on the same day as this article, by the same user. The other results are user-generated content. Citobun (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. It makes me sad to hear that you feel compelled to nominate this article for its deletion. To be clear to all others to this discussion, I created the page and its Cantonese page. I do admit that I'm not a very good Wikipedian, and constructive criticism is always welcome. As the creator of the article, naturally, I don't want to see it go. And so, I will try to address the concerns you raised.
I guess it can be safely said that 26 January 1841 was a day of great significance in Hong Kong's history. Otherwise, the members of the UK House of Commons would not have tabled a motion in Parliament to mark the day just earlier this year in January (source: "Early Day Motions: 180th anniversary of the founding of modern Hong Kong".). Nor would the Hong Kong Colonial Government issued its very first commemorative stamp for the 50th anniversary of it (source: "About Us: Hongkong Post".). It would be even more less likely that members from both Houses of UK Parliament would have spent the time to take videos for the day like they did this year, in addition to the motion (source: "Hong Kong 180th Anniversary - Part 1: Messages from British parliamentarians".).
However, and admittedly, this day of 26 January 1841 and its three English names (Foundation Day, Hong Kong Day, and Festival of Hong Kong) are perhaps not very well known for English speakers or in the English language. Even more so it's that this day has never been an official holiday. That is why a Google search does not turn up a lot, and the English search results that turn up are "not so authoritative" as you pointed out.
Yet, I would argue that this day, 開埠日 (hōi fauh yaht), is fairly well established in the Cantonese language with many reliable search results online. Or a local Hong Kong Cantonese news outlet, Apple Daily, would not have had an educational video out just yesterday with a significant portion related to this day (source: particularly around 7:43 "這才是真實的香港史︱水坑口開啟中國近代「國恥」？".).
And about your concern with the extent of Chinese etymology in this article, this Apple Daily's educational video also touches on its Chinese etymology as well, explaining the character 埠 (fauh) means "pier" (around 7:36 of the video). And if a local Cantonese news outlet for its Cantonese audiences would take the effort to explain what the character means. Is it not even more so warranted for English speakers?
Moreover, out of the three English names for this day (Foundation Day, Hong Kong Day, or Festival of Hong Kong), Foundation Day was chosen as the title for the article is because the Hong Kong judiciary and Legislative Council described the event of the British's taking possession of Hong Kong as "the founding of Hong Kong" (source: Paragraph 1034 of "judgment". and P. 16348 of "LegCo Record of Proceedings"(PDF).). UK parliamentarians likewise use a similar term (source: see the Commons motion above). Thus, the name of Foundation Day matches the best with official records than the other two, and this was why it was chosen.
I hope the above addresses your concerns. Best regards, --Magnet larry (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. I would like to supplement some resources that I just found online. Here is an article from Hong Kong Free Press celebrating 26 January back in 2016. (source: "Happy Birthday Hong Kong – 175 years old today".). Hong Kong Free Press is a pretty well recognised English news outlet in Hong Kong. I hope this English news article from Hong Kong Free Press can help demonstrate the significance of 26 January and its worthiness of a place in the Wikipedia world.
Also, here is another article from the Chinese news media Hong Kong Economic Times back in 2017 about 26 January, and the article even calls the day 紀念日 (literally "memorial day"). And as the tile of this article suggests, this article is about the meaning of 開埠 (hōi fauh) (source: "今天香港開埠176年紀念日 究竟「開埠」點解？".). Again, if a Chinese news outlet would spend its valuable resources to explain the meaning of the Chinese characters of the Chinese name of this day to its Chinese-speaking audiences, it is perhaps also advisable to do so for English speakers.
I hope the above further addresses your concerns. Best regards, --Magnet larry (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. I am very sorry for bothering you again. I just want to share with you below some more news articles I found online are related to 26 January. Yet, these articles may be political sensitive. So, I think I had better not comment much about these articles. I will just basically list them and quote a few sentences straight out from them that are directly relevant to 26 January, but, again, I want them to show you that 26 January is of significance and worthy a Wiki page about it. Thank you.--Magnet larry (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the above comments addressed to me: Looking at the above material, I think an article about the anniversary could be warranted. But I think the problem is that the current article is trying to portray the anniversary as something it isn't, namely an established commemorative occasion with a proper name. The title "Hong Kong Foundation Day" was selected arbitrarily by the article's author. None of the above sources uses it. The Chinese etymological sections are absolutely not necessary. Why is it not enough to explain that hoi means "open"? Why is it necessary to describe the historical development of the Chinese character? I don't get it. Same with the bit about the definition of the word "foundation". Finally, if the article stays it needs to be stripped of the huge amount of WP:OR, including WP:SYNTHESIS. Please review Wikipedia:Citing sources. The claims in the article should be directly verifiable using the reliable sources cited. Editors should not add their own interpretation, speculation, and commentary to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS in the article: "Unlike for Cantonese speakers, there is no uniform way of referring to 26 January in English." Two citations are given, one of which mentions "Foundation Day" while the other refers to it as "Hong Kong Day". The claim that "there is no uniform way of referring to 26 January in English" is not a conclusion stated by either of the cited sources. That said, neither of the cited references are reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed for the article needing some cleanups. The "Etymology" section should be trimmed or entirely deleted. but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, as long as a subject has sources to suggest notability, it should be kept and improved when the article is fairly sourced and one has already done everything they were able to. Sun8908Talk 11:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sun8908 Hello, Sun8908. For the issue about the etymology section, perhaps I overkilled it. Like I briefly mentioned above, I was just thinking that if most native Cantonese speakers needed explanation, then, it must be even more so required for English speakers. That’s why I dived deep into it. And then, I thought maybe I would need to do the same for English when I had done the Chinese etymology. Anyway, if you think that the etymology section is reductant, I won’t have a problem to see it go. Please feel free to cut whatever needs to be cut from the section or even the entire section. Thank you. --Magnet larry (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sun8908 Hello, Sun8908. To save everyone's time, I took your advice and deleted the etymology section. And you can have a look. Thank you. --Magnet larry (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : talk Hello, Citobun. Thank you for your reply. I am glad to hear that you agree that 26 January could be warranted. And to further show you that it is indeed warranted, I am listing below some more references.
One issue that you encountered was that you could not find creditable Chinese sources. And when I do a Google search by date range, not just a regular search, for this year’s 26 January or the 180th anniversary, it provides quite a few results from well-known Hong Kong Chinese news outlets of different political leanings. Also, if we take a closer look at these articles, it is not too difficult to notice that they were written by news outlets with different political leanings. As such, perhaps, they reflect how much the media perceive the relevance and value of this day for the Hong Kong public. Or, otherwise, perhaps, these articles would not have had been published in the first place by these many news agencies across the political spectrum. In addition, three out of the four news outlets cited below have actual, physical print circulation, which, I think, makes them tend to be more risk-averse to publishing anything that is insignificant to the public. And so, I hope the following can help further demonstrate that 26 January is important enough to have its own wiki page and does not deserve deletion:
As to your concern about “an established commemorative occasion with a proper name”, if this had been the case, perhaps I probably would not have emphasised that "Unlike for Cantonese speakers, there is no uniform way of referring to 26 January in English", which you pointed out this emphasis as a problem.
I think all of the problems that you have raised seem somehow directly or indirectly more or so related to translation, like User:Sun8908 suggested. On the one hand, there is this 開埠日 having been around like always. On the other hand, there is no direct English translation for 開埠. So, a few English names have emerged for it. The most popular one is “Hong Kong Day”, as seen online these days:
- "香港故事（二）：阿群帶路". Quote: 【26/1｜香港開埠180週年紀念日 Happy Hong Kong Day! 】
Certainly, these are not very authoritative. But at least they show how people actually translate or call this day in English when they need to and that I have not been making it up.
Then, there is the word “founding” getting translated into each other as 開埠 (hōi fauh), which I believe I have already provided some reliable references, and so, I guess I won’t do it here again.
And then there is also the English word “foundation”, which I have not provided too many references here so far. Actually, “foundation” is also an acceptable and official way to translate it or call it in English probably because "foundation" is a synonym of "founding". It’s just that “foundation” seems to be used by historians more than other people, though not always. Here below are some examples that use the English word “foundation”, which the wiki page uses for its title. The first one is particularly relevant, though it is a bit dated, because it was a resolution passed in 1941 by the Legislative Council for “the hundredth anniversary of the Colony's foundation”. The second one is from the website of the Hong Kong Herbarium of the current government saying, “During the first 30 years after the foundation of Hong Kong.” And if one takes a look at this website’s Chinese version, it should prove that the government translates “foundation” and “開埠” (hōi fauh) into each other. Other examples are from books written by historians. The first two books were published by Hong Kong University Press and the third one by Joint Publishing. These two publishers are very well known in Hong Kong. So, I hope the following references can prove to you that the English word “foundation” is actually one possible accepted translation of 開埠 (hōi fauh).
- "A Macao Narrative". (ISBN: 9789622090774) Quote: …until the foundation of Hong Kong and the opening of Shanghai gave wider scope for their energies…
All in all, I think User:Sun8908 is right. At least for me, translation did give me some headaches when I tried to create the page. And if you need to change anything about the page, please feel free to. Thank you. --Magnet larry (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hello all. I think I just found something that I believe is quite relevant to our discussion here. That is the advice given by Wiki about translation. Hong Kong is of course a multilingual city (mostly Cantonese though). So, translation plays a big part of life here. The same is perhaps also true for wiki pages related to Hong Kong, and the advice given about translation includes the following:
WP:HOWTRANS : The English text should be understandable to a wide audience, so – other things being equal – use everyday English expressions rather than jargon or foreign expressions. It may be necessary to add material explaining terms or cultural concepts unfamiliar to English-speaking readers.
I am not citing this to try to resurrect the etymology section. I just think this sums up my original intention of adding the etymology section to the English page pretty well. Of course, I did a poor job. And I took the advice and deleted it. Thank you.--Magnet larry (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request to withdraw nomination – nominator here. On reconsideration I think the article is salvageable if it is renamed (to something more general), simplified, and stripped of extraneous content and non-reliable sources. That discussion should happen on the article's talk page rather than at AfD. Citobun (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. I am very glad to see that you no longer think that 26 January does not deserve a wiki page on its own. And I understand that there must be a lot of ways to make the page a better one.
Yet, there is a thing that I would like to clarify with you. It seems that you are not saying that it is wrong or misleading to call or translate 開埠日 (hōi fauh yaht) into English as “foundation day”. However, you would like to see it be renamed because you want it to be “something more general”, and this is one of the conditions of you withdrawing your deletion nomination.
I would like to see whether I am misunderstanding you. Thank you.--Magnet larry (talk) 08:18, 2 April 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.