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. TNT case so an attempt at a properly sourced article is welcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westernisation in Hong Kong[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article is one big piece of original synthesis. Most of the references don't even mention westernisation or argue that what they describe is westernisation; they are just used to highlight specific topics declared "westernisation" by this article, with no general overview. Better sources exist, for example this study on westernisation (and the lack thereof) in Hong Kong. Bringing the article in line with what sources actually say about the subject would, however, amount to rewriting it completely. (This reason was copied from a comment posted in 2017 on the article's talk page, and it remains relevant) Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. .As you say, better sources exist. So add them. The things described are so obviously Westernization in any meaningo f the word that the title is appropriate. The article could of course be greatly expanded DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or stubify - better sources exist, and we might well have a suitable article on Westernization in Hong Kong, but this is not a suitable article but a mix of original synthesis, whether or not DGG agrees that the synthesis is correct. It's not just a matter of tweaking it a little here and there; the whole page needs to be rewritten, the vast majority of the current sources needs to be discarded, and a new page needs to be written from the bottom up. This kind of rewriting hasn't happened in the past two and a half years. Having a page with content that violates our core content policies and without useful sources is of no benefit to the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (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.