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. Sango123 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable residential complex. There's hundreds of these complexes in Hong Kong (I've lived in one), and I don't see any reason why this one is so special as to deserve its own article. It's not the tallest / most expensive to build / most reported-on development, or at least the article doesn't say so. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete per nom.--Peta 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is the first and only time I've ever felt bad voting to delete this kind of article, so I think it deserves some really good reasons to delete. First of all, the nom is very well explained. It is quite accurate to say that it'd take at least a couple hundred articles on such developments just to cover the residences of a majority of the population of Hong Kong. And it's also true that few of the developments - and very few of the structures - are especially notable in and of themselves. Appealing to precedent, New York City is slightly bigger than Hong Kong, yet we don't go into such detail to document all of the residential developments in NYC. Still, I'll sort of regret seeing this article go. My Alt Account 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, without regrets. Notability neither stated nor implied. I get roughly 27,500 general Google hits, which boil down to 526 distinct hits. Analysis of the distinct hits shows a lot of geographic references, no articles showing notability for size, height, weight, expense, cost, etc. Fails WP:NOT as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a travel guide. Lack of sources and documentation makes it Original Research, failing WP:NOR. Tychocat 10:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, actually a pretty well-written article on what I consider to be an nn topic. Lankiveil 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Delete, Hello everyone, this is my first article on Wikipedia, and so forgive my lack of experience. I even had to look up on how to properly format my part of this discussion, which just goes to show how much of a newbie I am. Those of you with additional input are right in that South Horizons is not a particularly special development, even though it is quite well-known around Hong Kong, and there have been quite a number of suicides there too. Anyway, I did use sources of information from the internet, but I don't know how to do the citations yet, haha. So anyway like I was saying, this is my first article and I felt that something I knew well and is not yet in Wikipedia is the place where I live. However, I am not familiar with all the rules and policies here, so judging from what has been discussed (particularly Tychocat's nomination), I think I would go with whatever decision that will be made, and I am leaning towards deletion myself, although personally I'll regret to see it go too. Nice to see how the Wikipedia community works, though!Gggu 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A gold star and a chocolate bar for user Gggu for taking this so well. Please don't take this process personally. I strongly encourage you to keep contributing; your diligence and good attitude will make you a very successful editor in time. If you have any questions as you learn how Wikipedia works, feel free to ask them on my talk page. William Pietri 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gggu, the nomination is not about the writer and contributors of the article. A good way for newcomers to learn about properly editing articles is to contribute to others first rather than create their own. Also please see WP:NOT Clamster5 23:07, 12 September 2006 (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.