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. Krimpet (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK Culture

[edit]

Allegedly about Mong Kok, Hong Kong culture. Lacks proper attribution and referencing. It's current and only source is a Geocities website - in Chinese. Though it may remain to be a clearly known implicitly understood concept in reality, the absence of reliable and verifiable sources does not satisfy it for inclusion. The article in its current states is highly subjective and plain original research (w/o sources). When I first came across this article in April 2007, reasonable actions have been taken to improve the quality of this article. I asked the creator of the article to provide additional referencing, for which the request has gone unanswered. I have also notified the WikiProject Hong Kong community to solicit assistance. Absence of action suggests that this article does not have enough clear notability and sources to support a Wikipedia article about the subject. Luke! 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn't seem to be real. --Sefringle 20:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 23:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be a good addition to the Hong Kong Wikipedia (if there is one I don't know :). カラム 00:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you don't use in-line citations in an article, don't expect it to be kept in Wikipedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it definately needs sources... if it had citations that were verifiable and credible, I might be able convinced to change my mind. But as is, it needs to be deleted.Balloonman 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete external links are websites in Chinese, lack of reliable citations, and problematic image. Hydrogen Iodide 07:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find google hit besides us that relates to it. And I don't want to sound ethnocentric but I think that if you are going to use a source on the English Wikipedia the source should probably be in English. --St.daniel ^Talk 12:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:NOTE upon initial inspection. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:05, 20 May 2007 (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.